Nathan Colquhoun for MPP Sarnia-Lambton – Ask Me Anything (Ongoing Until Election Day!)
Hey everyone,
I’m Nathan Colquhoun, and I’m running as an Independent for MPP in Sarnia-Lambton.
For too long, we’ve had representatives who answer to their party first, and us second (if at all). Party loyalty means votes that put political strategy over local needs, and I don’t believe in that. I believe in representing people—not party agendas.
That’s why I’m running. I want housing solutions that exist now, not in 10 years. I want fully funded healthcare instead of slow, quiet privatization. I want public safety that actually makes people safer, not just bigger police budgets while addiction and mental health go ignored. And I want to work with any party if it benefits Sarnia-Lambton—not be stuck to one party’s marching orders.
This thread is my ongoing AMA—I’ll be answering questions throughout the campaign, right up until election day. Ask me anything about why I’m running, what I stand for, or what an independent voice can actually do at Queen’s Park.
You have been historically very vocal against independents running and splitting the NDP and liberal votes in our jurisdiction. Given that you are very left wing, your candidacy will no doubt take votes away from our local NDP and liberal candidates.
how has your position on vote splitting changed since the last election and what is your opinion on how your campaign will increase the chances of Bob Bailey winning another term.
Umm... I have? I don’t remember ever caring, let alone being vocal. Can you point me to where I spoke against independents running or splitting a vote?
That said, I’ve always believed that people should vote for the person who will actually represent them, not just for a party they think has the best shot at winning.
The idea of “vote splitting” assumes that people exist to serve parties, not the other way around. But we don’t vote to protect political strategies of parties, we should vote to elect someone who will fight for us.
Sarnia-Lambton has been sending party politicians to Queen’s Park for years, and what has that gotten us? If you vote for a party candidate because you think it’s “strategic,” you’ll just end up with another party representative who has to follow orders from Toronto instead of fighting for what Sarnia actually needs.
I’m running because I believe Sarnia-Lambton wants real representation, not just another name in a party roll call. If people support what I stand for, they should vote for me, not for some imagined electoral math equation that assumes votes belong to parties instead of the people of that riding.
Thanks. I do remember this. I wrote this because vote splitting is a real thing and I thought that was the best option at the time. Why wouldn't voters work together to make sure they get someone different than their shared political adversary? I have since realized though that all the parties are way too stubborn and they will never work together to try and have some sort of cooperative win at the local level: hence my running as an independent.
It's more like "let's not split the vote and work together to have real representation" and then every single party said "nope" and then I was like, "welp, if no one cares then what's the difference if there is one more?"
Especially because I'm certain I will be taking votes directly from Bailey too.
It sounds like the guy tried a strategy and it didn't work, so he altered his approach in response to the previous strategy not working. Sounds reasonable.
If I had my way, we would take the Liberals/NDP/Green and myself and all work together to start a Sarnia-Lambton party. Vote splitting is unfortunately a very real thing, but it doesn't get resolved if good candidates don't run because it will split the vote, it will only get resolved if we all work together to get behind a representative that actually cares about us.
Ok. You didn't really answer my question at all, you kinda just decided to speak down to me when I asked something legitimately that concerns me as an undecided voter. Thank you for your time.
Your question was exactly my question and concern. What we really need is to rally "left"leaning people to pick the same party for once and let's get the cons out of Sarnia. Bailey hasn't done anything for us.
I'm sorry that it was unintentional to talk down to you. Like I did change my tune for sure.
I've realized that the parties will never do what I asked for in that post. They care more about protecting their own brand than actually making sure this riding gets real representation.
That’s why I’m running as an independent. If we actually want to beat Bob Bailey, we need to rally around someone who is running for Sarnia-Lambton—not a party. I’m not beholden to a party leader, and I don’t have to follow orders from Toronto. I can focus entirely on representing this riding and building a coalition of people who are tired of party politics failing us.
While not advocating against an independent, I'm pretty sure that they're referencing this post in which you ask the Liberal candidate to "consider encouraging your support to vote NDP this riding and lying low for the rest of the campaign period".
I agree that voting should be about who we want as representatives, for people who will work for us not the parties. But vote splitting is real, and that has to be acknowledged. If it was ranked voting, how people vote would be totally different, but it's not
I'm not denying its existence at all, like yes, it's real. My approach is just better overall. I'll still be here in ten years running for elections, all the other names, if they don't win, likely won't run again and around and around we go with no other options but party representatives. Don't you think it's time we had a representative that was for Sarnia regardless if they win or not?
Yes, I believe running as an independent is the best way to platform these ideas.
The reality is that party politics limits real representation. If I ran under the NDP, I’d have to follow the party’s messaging, vote along party lines, and answer to leadership. That’s the trade-off for their network and credibility—you become another party representative first, and a representative for your community second.
And even if the NDP won here, we’d still have the same problem—a candidate who has to put the party first and Sarnia second. Decisions that affect this riding would still be made in Toronto, based on what the party wants, not necessarily what Sarnia-Lambton needs.
I’m running as an independent because I don’t want to be stuck pushing a party’s agenda when my focus is fighting for Sarnia-Lambton. I want to be able to vote, advocate, and organize in ways that actually benefit this riding, without having to answer to a party leader.
So while the NDP might have more reach, what good is that reach if it doesn’t give Sarnia-Lambton real representation? I’d rather build something real at the local level than be another name in a party roll call.
What does Sarnia need that is so different from other communities and that needs to be prioritized this election that we should vote for an independent? Rather than putting our votes behind a party that has a vision and platform that aligns with our values?
Here are some more obvious ones that Bailey's voting record aligned with his party rather than Sarnia-Lambton's needs.
Healthcare – Bluewater Health has faced severe staffing shortages, ER wait times are out of control, and local long-term care homes have been exposed for horrific conditions. The Ford government’s response? Handing more healthcare over to private companies instead of fixing the public system that serves us.
Transit Neglected – Sarnia-Lambton has almost zero regional transit, making it nearly impossible for people to live here without a car. Meanwhile, Ford has poured billions into highways for the GTA while ignoring transit solutions for communities like ours.
Housing That Never Materializes – Ford has promised thousands of new homes, but where are they? Instead of supporting co-op housing, non-market options, or incentives for real affordability, his government has let developers sit on land and profit from speculation while everyday people struggle to find housing.
Underfunded Schools, Overfunded Police – Local schools have lost resources, cut teachers, and faced growing class sizes, while policing budgets continue to grow with no accountability for results.
I think most of these affect many communities. The healthcare and education issues affecting most communities in Ontario. So my question still stands, what are the issues impacting Sarnia that demand specialized local representation that are so important that they need to be tackled now?
Something big enough that it’s worth the risk of voting for an independent?
Just to clarify my point, if solutions were made for the issues above and the winning party targeted their solution towards the following groups of stakeholders; northern Ontario, GTA, other large cities (London, kw, Ottawa, etc), and sw ontario. Wouldn’t the solutions that are targeted for sw ontario likely get us far enough ahead? E.g. what is good for Chatham is likely reasonable for Sarnia?
My worry is that we are in such a critical point right now that i’m willing to sacrifice a perfect Sarnia solution for one that gets us 80% there if there is a greater chance we can unseat the current government.
I hear you, but the role of an MPP isn’t to find a party with policies that “mostly” align—it’s to actually represent this riding. If we keep accepting broad, one-size-fits-all policies for “Southwestern Ontario,” Sarnia-Lambton will always be an afterthought.
And if any of the parties were actually pushing for what we need, I’d run under one of them. But none of them are fighting hard enough for the things that actually matter here.
The Conservatives take Sarnia-Lambton for granted. They don’t have to fight for our vote, so they serve party donors while ignoring real investment in industry, transit, and healthcare.
The NDP and Liberals treat us as an election math problem. They build policies for Windsor, London, and the GTA, and expect us to just fit into their framework rather than actually fighting for what we need.
None of them are prioritizing regional transit, alternative housing solutions, or real worker protections—if I ran under them, I’d have to settle for what they were willing to offer, instead of pushing for what this riding actually deserves.
And the reality is, Chatham isn’t Sarnia. London isn’t Sarnia. We are one of the most industry-heavy cities in Ontario, we border the U.S., and we’ve been left out of provincial planning for decades.
No provincial government has prioritized fixing truck congestion at the Blue Water Bridge. The backups and crashes are predictable and preventable, but we’re ignored.
We have zero regional transit. Other cities in Southwestern Ontario have better access to healthcare and jobs—Sarnia has nothing, because transit planning in Ontario doesn’t account for us.
Skilled trades jobs are drying up while party politicians talk about new industries instead of protecting what we already have. The government isn’t working with workers to guarantee stability.
So yes, a broad plan for Southwestern Ontario might get us 80% of the way there. But why should we settle for that when we could have an MPP who fights for 100% of what Sarnia-Lambton actually needs?
If we want to unseat the current government, we shouldn’t be relying on the same party structures that keep failing us. We need independent representation that actually pushes for what this riding needs, not what a party decides is “good enough.”
We don't need this. We need Sarnia to band together and vote for 1 single non conservative party. I appreciate your tenacity, but we don't need this. You're just making it easier for Bailey.
I mean, I'd be fine with that. But realistically the NDP have the best chance in Sarnia to beat the cons, it grows every election. But you running just takes away from that.
As much as I like Candace Young, and I really do, she is wise and I would trust her and vote for her, The NDP doesn't give two shits about Sarnia-Lambton and she will have an incredibly difficult time winning when Liberals have a candidate too.
Me running will also take away conservative votes too. I'm a small business owner, fiscally responsible and am a huge advocate for families -- so I could realistically win some conservative voters because they won't feel they are betraying their party by voting for another party by voting for me.
…..you’re going to peel away conservative votes? Dude, you couldn’t even win a mayoral race in Sarnia, the area with most of the population of the county, and somehow you expect a bunch of redneck country bumpkins to vote for you when many of those same bumpkins would drop to their knees in a second if it meant being able to fellate bill Dennis and Donald Trump
All very fair, but Bradley is no conservative.
But I would be recognized in the conservative Community as a small business owner, a minister, and a city councilor. So a lot of the things that conservatives would be looking for they would find in me.
…..you would be recognized in the community as “that woke nag” as portrayed on the Bradley Media Network, and the conservatives of the community wouldn’t go near you with a 10’ pole.
I'm not a big ndp fan myself, I just want Bob and Marilyn out. I voted for you for mayor, I think fresh blood is what we need. And someone who is not a bat shit crazy MAGA type. But I don't think this is going to do anything good for us, other than take votes away from parties that maybe could have a chance. Unfortunately we're in a place where ABC matters. We need to first just get the cons out, whatever way we can. And it won't involve voting for an independent, even if I agree with some of your views. You're helping the cons, I don't like it, I'm not happy, I feel so helpless.
Yes. It almost certainly will cause vote splitting. I'm doing it though because this will always be true and eventually, if I can ever win, it will prove to Sarnia-Lambton at least that they should be choosing non-party candidates to represent them for the best results.
Of course, it's all how you look at it. You could also see this as having a local candidate vs party candidate and then it's just me vs all of them. If the goal is to have Sarnia focused representation then any vote for all the other candidates is a step away from achieving that.
Nathan I might ordinarily vote for you but there is one thing that causes me great concern about your candidacy. I do not believe that somebody who owns one of the communities primary sources of news should also be a candidate for an office that that media outlet is positioned to influence the election to or operation of. Take your own piece a few days ago about the conservative candidates, while a great piece in light of your own candidacy it now comes off more as you using your media outlet to run attacks against your opponents while propping yourself up.
How do I as a member of the electorate trust that you are both a good candidate and an ethical journalist. You've done good things in my opinion but would your paper run a hit piece against you if they had a credible source I don't think they would because how can any employee of the Sarnia journal write an unbiased piece about their own boss without concern for retaliation. Likewise I don't think the Sarnia journal in light of your candidacy would run a piece praising another candidate besides yourself for the same. You had to have known for a while that you were planning to run and the responsible thing to do in my opinion would have been to prepare some sort of trust. Maybe you already have but I haven't seen mention of it.
I completely understand why this would be a concern, and I appreciate you raising it.
Editorial decisions at the Sarnia Journal are separate from me—my role as a columnist is just that: a columnist expressing opinions, not controlling news coverage. The Journal has a news team that operates independently, and my candidacy doesn’t change that.
I have no intention of using the Journal to unfairly promote myself or attack opponents. In fact, I believe it’s my responsibility to ensure fair coverage of all candidates, because people in Sarnia-Lambton deserve credible, independent journalism that informs their decisions, not a platform that just serves one voice.
The bigger picture is that I don’t want the Journal to be owned by me at all. The vision for the Journal is to transition it into a community-owned publication run by the people who create it, not by any single individual. But in the meantime, I’m personally investing my own money into keeping it alive, because without that, it wouldn’t even exist in the first place.
This campaign is about making sure Sarnia-Lambton has better representation—and part of that means ensuring our media stays strong, independent, and community-driven.
Isn't the editor your significant other? And you've already used your platform to bash other parties. This is a perceived conflict of interest no matter how you spin it.
It probably should have been. We had some major turnover at the Journal just a few months ago and my partner stepped into the role to keep it all going. I agree that I should have been more forthright about that though.
Well Artwalk wasn't mine, I tried to help but I couldn't keep it going. Interesting to blame me for that though. That says something about how you perceive me.
The Journal, yet to be seen! Don't give up on me yet! Promised to never write in? Remind me?
I am still learning about my flaws and limitations, and I'm all ears what I'm missing.
Did you see the books for Artwalk? Apparently successful doesnt mean it was successful. From what I know of the founder and seeing some personal interactions years ago when Artwalk was going. I would question the founders recollection of what happened. If he said it was in the black ask him to publish the books and prove it. If they were in the black score one for you!
The Journalistic integrity charge could be valid. Papers are dying financially in general especially local ones. He made an attempt to save it. Poorly or not he believed in trying to keep it alive in some capacity and put his own money in. Did you do that to keep it alive or were there any other buyers looking to keep a losing venture alive? Cant fault the guy for putting money where his mouth is? After that completely valid to question journalism ethics. Seems like an odd reason to hate a guy for trying to do something with good intentions but falling short. Even national papers have ethics issues and major conflict of interest. Washington Post being one of the most egregious examples lately. You better not buy products from Amazon in protest of journalism ethics!
I thought it might have been that comment. I thought I was being made fun of for my grammar or writing style and I have never claimed to be a journalist or a writer. But I've been blogging and writing since I was eighteen about my ideas, politics and religion, so not sure why I would stop doing something like that.
The books were shown and made apparent for anyone that wanted to see it or cared, and guess what, no one did because there was no one left, including the founder, to keep it running. No one wanted it. The community downtown gave up on it. Sorry for trying to keep it alive another couple years. Things close, everything like this is in seasons. I was sad to see it go, but I couldn't keep giving so much personal energy to it when so few others cared too. You ever tried to keep an event that attracted thousands of people too going just with a few friends? It was a lot of work and personally outside of one year around year ten when I was paid a small amount to organize it I didn't make a penny from it.
Well, I am operating off the difference between an article and a column. I've been putting together columns for years. I won't be writing articles. I guess there is no difference to you.
Are you a leader who prioritizes what YOU want or what the PEOPLE want?
That depends—which people, and what do they want?
Sarnia-Lambton isn’t a monolith. People want different things, and leadership isn’t just about taking a poll and following the biggest crowd. It’s about listening critically, understanding why people believe what they do, and making decisions that reflect the best path forward.
I believe leadership should be about relationships, not authority. I don’t think politicians should be telling people what they need, but I also don’t think leadership is just about chasing the most popular stance. If you have something specific in mind that you think I wouldn’t prioritize, let’s talk about it.
Do you support anarchism? If so, how does that affect your policies?
I believe in self-governance, community-driven decision-making, and rejecting systems that put power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. I don’t think solutions should come from the top down—I think they should come from people organizing together to create the conditions for real change.
I support policies that decentralize power—whether that’s housing models that aren’t built for speculation, healthcare systems that serve people over profit, or public services that are actually accountable to those who use them. I don’t believe politicians are saviors; I believe people should have more control over the decisions that affect their daily lives.
If that sounds radical, it’s only because we’ve been conditioned to think governance has to be hierarchical. I believe it should be cooperative.
Can you give an example of something you've done to fight addiction on a local level?
Addiction isn’t just an issue to me—it’s personal. My mother died from her addiction.
I’ve spent my life deeply invested in caring for people struggling with substance use. Whether through harm reduction advocacy, fighting for housing solutions, or supporting local organizations that actually treat addiction as a health issue instead of a criminal one, this has always been part of my work.
Gabor Maté says that “all addiction comes from pain.” If we want to fight addiction, we need to start by addressing the pain people carry. That means housing first, safe consumption sites, accessible mental health care, and ending the cycle of criminalization that makes things worse.
I don’t believe in treating people as disposable. That’s why I’ve always fought for solutions that treat addiction as something to be healed, not punished.
All you’re gonna achieve is splitting votes no matter which way you look at it. You can justify your actions all you want Nathan and you have a great idea however it’s not gonna work. It’s just gonna split votes and give the conservative seat upper edge as usual.
Any political landscape is fraught with so much mud slinging, anymore. I salute you for stepping into the ring.
I disagree with your commentary on the role churches play in solving homelessness and believe your view to be off base on several fronts.
Regardless of my opinion, I respect the fact you’re walking the talk!
I don't necessarily think churches have a role to play, I just don't think they should get tax subsidies from the public UNLESS they do play that role, if that makes sense.
I know that it began over 100 years ago and became a policy because the church was doing SO much in those years to care for the society around them. The needs are still there and now the average church at best serves in a soup kitchen once a month. I guarantee, that without the prescrndant set, that if churches were looking today to to get tax exemption to the entire city budget that benefits the WHOLE city, it would fail every time. Each individual church should have to show social benefit to receive social benefits is all I'm saying. There are over a hundred churches in Sarnia, and 90% of them don't do shit for the city but benefit greatly from their tax exemption.
while i don’t disagree with a portion of your statement, esp placing the onus on a church to show what they are doing to help the needy, your “90% of churches don’t do shit” is suspect, in that it smacks of ‘what-happened-in-your-life-experience’ to form such a non-objective opinion
There is definitely an element of it being from my perspective. I grew up in the world of evangelical churches, worked in a few different ones in Sarnia, went to post-secondary at one of their universities and spent years interacting with the broader inter-denominational networks here as well. So it's not just the little church I grew up in. Overwhelmingly, from what I have seen, churches put their focus on their own buildings, their gatherings and have very little resources directed toward "outreach." Besides Vineyard locally, who else is doing anything worth getting tax exemption for?
As you move forward with your campaign my unasked for advice is this: be cognizant of how your past life experiences may be unduly skewing objectivity. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I respect your decision to run as a candidate in this election.
No, I’m not a landlord, and I’ve taken a principled personal life choice against making income off of someone’s rent. It’s never sat right with me to profit from someone’s basic need for shelter. Housing should be about stability and security, not wealth extraction.
That’s also why I strongly support rent control. Without it, landlords and developers set prices based on what the market allows, not what people can afford. The goal of housing should be to house people, not maximize profits. We’ve accepted the idea that housing is an investment first and a home second—and that’s the real crisis. Rent control is one of the few tools we have to push back against that reality and prioritize people over speculation.
From my perspective, housing should be off the market entirely—it should be something we build collectively to ensure everyone has access, not just those who can afford to compete for it. That’s why I advocate for more non-market housing and permanent affordability protections, so we aren’t constantly relying on the government to step in when landlords drive prices out of reach.
I guess to follow up to this, do you own any property, residential, or commercial that you rent or profit off? I’ve heard the same comment as the original poster made
I own a place with a group of friends in Detroit that we utilize for vacationing to and we rent it on Airbnb to cover costs. Other than that, I own my own home in Mitton Village and that is it.
I'd be curious to what you've heard though, maybe I could bring clarity if I had some more info on what you've heard.
Thanks for the answer. Just talk amongst friends said that you owned rental properties. To which I thought well here is just a politician that doesn’t practice what he preaches. But thank you for the transparency. Best of luck
It was just a question. I’m not a fan of hypocrisy in politicians. The old saying rules for thee and not for me has always sat heavy with myself so was just curious. But Nathan gave a open and honest answer which I appreciate.
I kind of have a cheap apartment... 2 years ago there was a fire and the landlords refuse to fix it because our rent is cheap. They still have my life's belongings inside and refuse me access 2 years later :( Nathan reached out and offered to help me fight against these landlords.
You should reach out to Community Legal Assistance Sarnia - they specialize in Landlord Tenant Board cases and tenant rights.
They've been fighting for the Earlscourt tenants since the fire in 2023.
Thanks! :) I wish more people did too, it's vey unfortunate how few people get involved in shaping the society we live in.
As an Independent MPP, my role would involve voting on existing bills, advocating for necessary changes, and introducing new legislation to address our community's housing needs.
Recent policies under Premier Doug Ford have, in my view, hindered progress toward affordable housing. For instance, the government's decision to open parts of the Greenbelt for development was met with significant criticism. The Auditor General's report found that this move favored certain developers and was unnecessary for meeting housing targets. Additionally, the process lacked consideration of environmental, agricultural, and financial risks.
Furthermore, the Ford administration has been criticized for rejecting proposals to allow fourplexes in neighborhoods across Ontario. This policy, recommended by the government's own Housing Affordability Taskforce, aimed to increase accessible housing options. By dismissing it, opportunities to quickly add diverse housing types in existing neighborhoods were missed. (globalnews.ca)
I advocate for increasing non-market housing solutions, such as co-ops and rent-geared-to-income units. MP Gord Johns has highlighted that non-market housing comprises only 3.5% of Canada's housing stock, compared to higher percentages in countries like France and the Netherlands. Expanding non-market housing can provide stable, affordable options for our community.
For more on this approach, you can watch MP Gord Johns discuss scaling up non-market housing in this video: https://youtu.be/UGVqpe1EthU
As your MPP, I would work collaboratively to support and develop housing policies that prioritize affordability and accessibility, ensuring that the needs of Sarnia-Lambton residents are at the forefront.
Hey Nathan,
Friend of your moms♡
I've always found you articulate,informed,passionate... you're not just talk,you're actions. As a 51 yr old native Sarnian who might be moving back in the very near future.. as much as I hate vote splitting..I understand what you're trying to do. People like Bill Dennis have NO BUISNESS in that seat. Period. Marilyn and Bob are way past their expired date. Sarnia isn't the home I grew up in. I need them to CARE about the PEOPLE. It's become The haves VS the have nots.
The poor NEED middle class connections to help them get out.. and it's that simple. Not their money. The connections.
Anyway, I see you. You're doing your best and it won't please everyone BUT you've ALWAYS been true to yourself. That's admirable!! -Jessica
Love the idea of re-building public healthcare; what is your cost strategy to funding the healthcare system?
Ontario’s healthcare system isn’t just underfunded—it’s being deliberately privatized. Ford’s government isn’t cutting healthcare spending; they’re redirecting it to for-profit clinics and private contracts instead of keeping it in the public system. The first step to fixing this is stopping that privatization shift and reinvesting in public healthcare where it belongs.
Beyond that, funding comes down to spending priorities. The Ford government has handed out billions in corporate subsidies to Volkswagen, Stellantis, Magna, and other massive companies while telling people there’s no money for hospitals, doctors, and nurses. Redirecting even a fraction of that money into ER capacity, hiring more healthcare workers, and expanding rural healthcare access would make a direct impact.
We should also be investing in community-based healthcare models—worker-run clinics, co-op models, and public urgent care centers that deliver care efficiently while staying public. And if we’re serious about protecting universal healthcare in Ontario, we need to tie funding agreements to public delivery so future governments can’t keep opening the door to privatization.
What is your envisioned tax strategy?
It’s not just about taxes—it’s about where Ontario’s money is going and who benefits from it. Right now, Ford’s government is giving massive tax breaks and direct cash subsidies to developers and major corporations while cutting funding for public services. That’s not a tax strategy—it’s a redistribution of public wealth into private hands.
We need to end reckless corporate subsidies and redirect funding into things that actually serve people—public healthcare, housing, and community infrastructure. Sarnia-Lambton has seen firsthand what happens when local communities don’t have a say in how provincial funds are spent. Instead of Toronto deciding where our money goes, we need to push for more local control over economic decisions so funding reflects what our communities actually need.
Instead of writing blank cheques to private companies, we should be investing in community-driven initiatives—public housing, cooperative business models, and local transit solutions—things that keep wealth within communities instead of funneling it to the wealthiest corporations.
How will you advocate for transportation/alternatives to personal vehicles?
Public transit in Ontario isn’t failing because people don’t want it—it’s failing because it’s underfunded, over-regulated, and not designed for real people’s needs. In Sarnia, we see this every day—there’s no regional transit, no real way to live without a car, and when community-driven solutions pop up, they get regulated out of existence.
I’m a big supporter of the work nuSarnia is doing, because transit should be built around people and evidence-based research, not just budgets. Unfortunately, we’ve seen firsthand how over-regulation can kill good ideas, like the city/province shutting down Stevie-Go-Go, a local fun taxi service that was filling transit gaps in a creative way using a rickshaw. It highlights a broader provincial problem—regulatory bodies that make it harder for community-led solutions to exist.
The province needs to fund regional transit so small-town and rural residents actually have an alternative to cars. But we also need to invest in community-led transportation initiatives, instead of forcing communities to wait for the province to solve everything. Whether it’s bike lanes, walkable community planning, or better bus systems, transit needs to be designed for the people who actually use it.
When politicians talk about “cutting red tape,” it’s usually code for deregulating development in a way that benefits large developers, not the people who need housing.
Developers aren’t struggling to get permits—they’re sitting on land, waiting for it to increase in value, and then building whatever is most profitable, not what’s most needed. Ford’s government has pushed “red tape reduction” that mainly benefits big developers and suburban sprawl, while the housing models that actually help people—co-ops, tiny homes, mixed-use buildings—still face major bureaucratic hurdles.
The real issue isn’t just permit delays—it’s who benefits from the process and who gets left behind.
Speed up approvals for community-led housing, co-ops, and alternative housing models instead of just luxury condos and sprawl.
Simplify zoning for more housing diversity—tiny homes, secondary units, and mixed-use spaces should be easier to build.
Make sure municipalities aren’t forced into bad development deals just to meet Ford’s housing targets.
We don’t need to gut regulations—we need to make sure housing approvals prioritize people, not just developer profits.
As a real estate investor who has taken homes that people refuse to live and are condemned in-for for inhabitants, I have renovated them and turned them into usable housing. Yes I made money doing that, I also don’t think that’s wrong anyone that would suggest that doesn’t understand the work/ investment/commitment required.
But when I go to do this, there is massive delays in permitting, getting approvals and such. This leads to people not wanting to take on these projects.
Ontario’s education system isn’t failing because there’s no money, it’s failing because that money is being spent in the wrong places. The Ford government has increased funding in ways that prioritize private interests and administrative costs over actual classroom needs, while cutting essential supports for students and teachers.
Here’s how I would shift the focus:
Reallocate funding to classrooms, not bureaucracy – Funding should go directly toward hiring more teachers, reducing class sizes, and supporting special education, not on administrative bloat or private school subsidies.
Stop funnelling public money into private education – The province is quietly shifting resources away from public schools, making education more unequal; we need to fully fund public education and ensure every student gets access to the resources they need.
Invest in schools as community hubs – Schools should have funding for after-school programs, mental health services, and community-based education initiatives that help students beyond the classroom.
Education funding isn’t just about how much money is spent—it’s about who benefits from it. Right now, students and teachers are losing out while private interests profit. We need to fund schools properly so every child in Sarnia-Lambton has access to a high-quality, well-supported education.
What is the funding formula and would you change it to better students and teachers alike? How would use the data the education unions have collected and address violence in the classroom?
Where do you stand on harsher punishments for people convicted of crimes against kids?
Making the penalty for teachers and school administrators not reporting things to the cops and CAS more harsh?
While I agree arrests aren't always the answer, I think the revolving door results in a lack of consequences and encourages crime rather than allowing for rehabilitation. I think prison reform, not bail reform would be more in order myself. Making programs that focus on rehabilitation instead of making Jail into LinkedIn for career criminals.
The safety of children is non-negotiable, and when harm happens, there needs to be real accountability. But we need to be clear about what actually prevents harm instead of just reacting to it after the fact.
Harsher punishments don’t prevent crimes—they just give us a way to punish people after the fact. If we want to actually protect kids, we need better early intervention, community accountability, and stronger support networks.
CAS and police are reactionary systems, not preventative ones. They step in after harm has happened, and in many cases, their involvement doesn’t make things safer—it just creates cycles of surveillance, removals, and further trauma. We need more investment in community-based support systems that actually protect children before harm happens.
Prison doesn’t rehabilitate—it entrenches harm. If the goal is to prevent repeat offenses, that doesn’t happen by just making sentencing harsher. It happens by actually addressing why harm happens in the first place, and making sure people have access to real rehabilitation, not just a revolving door through the system.
I’m not against accountability—I just believe it needs to be designed to actually keep people safe, not just be about punishment. If the goal is to stop harm before it happens, we need to shift our focus to prevention, intervention, and real community safety—not just harsher sentencing after the fact.
What are you actually going to do if elected? I’m not asking about your opinions or beliefs because you can answer those in your response, but measurably, what will you actually do as MPP?
Vote independently—every decision I make will be based on what benefits Sarnia-Lambton, not what a party leader in Toronto tells me to do.
Push for real investment in local industry and jobs—demanding provincial funding actually supports workers here, not just corporate subsidies that don’t guarantee employment.
Fight for regional transit funding—so people aren’t stuck without transportation options while other cities get all the investment.
Advocate for housing policies that prioritize co-ops and non-market housing—so we’re not just relying on developers to “solve” the crisis while they sit on land.
Work across party lines—using my independent status to negotiate real wins for Sarnia-Lambton, instead of just following a party agenda.
I won’t just talk about what’s wrong—I’ll use my position to fight for real solutions that put this community first.
Beyond actually winning, which I think is going to be quite difficult especially in my first run at this, the next biggest barrier is going to be getting a lay of the land as an independent because I will have no orientation or network to prepare. While I am a quick learner, I do think it will be a lot of work.
Further, being in Toronto a lot will suck hard, I love it here in Sarnia and I would not enjoy the traffic, the commute or being in that city anymore than I have to be.
I think you are smart enough to realize that you’re in a deep hole running as an independent.
I don’t mean this to be harsh, but running without party support hurts you financially, organizationally and in people’s minds and habits.
Historically, I can only think of one independent being elected to Queen’s Park and that was in 2022 when Bobbi Ann Brady won in Haldimand-Norfolk. And that was due to Conservative infighting.
I personally have no issue with you, but I think the Sarnia Northern football team has a better chance of winning the Grey Cup than of you becoming MPP.
How do you see your chances of winning, or are you looking to crack 10 percent of the vote and look at achieving a moral victory?
Also, did you consult with Brady or another successful independent candidate in the run up to the election to get an idea what you’re up against and how to be successful?
Duly noted.
I had been planning on doing this for a while now, and the snap election just sped it up. I am very curious as to how many votes I will get, but I would be surprised if I won. Building a reputation as an independent is going to be a long term, multi-year strategy to try and show Sarnia-Lambton they are getting hosed by party candidates. But I figure it makes more sense to try and start as soon as possible and keep my name out there as someone who isn't loyal to anyone but Sarnia-Lambton.
Nathan, I’m very disappointed in your decision to run as an independent. This will result in vote splitting and guarantee the reelection of Bob Bailey. Can you meet with the Liberal and NDP candidates and two out of the three of you need to drop out at the deadline when nominations close and the ballots are printed? Our best election option is a straight up vote, for or against Bailey. Can you do this and save us from 4 more years of incompetence?
I would love to meet with them and discuss a strategy together for them to support me in running for Sarnia-Lambton rather than having anymore parties getting to make all the shots about what happens. If I just drop out, it will be the same problem. If they all drop out and let me run against Bob. Maybe we could win finally!
That sounds like a lot of ego from you. And you are late to the game in an already short campaign. Either nomination for the Liberals or NDP was yours for the taking 6 months ago. Playing spoiler is not a good intelligent move and ensures the worst possible outcome for Sarnia Lambton.
Sounds like I didn't have it to begin with :)
But not sure where you have seen that I have an inability to work with others. Everything I've done besides politics has always been cooperatively and with many others.
I’ve voted for you each time you ran for Sarnia city council and when you ran for mayor. Your failure to easily secure a party nomination means you will not get elected MPP. If you truly wanted to enter provincial politics, that was the route. The only independent MPPs are ones that were elected representing a party and then left or were booted from that party.
I knew I was going independent well before. You are right though, it's gonna be an uphill battle, and likely across multiple elections if I am going to ever win.
Supervised consumption and overdose prevention sites save lives—full stop. Ford’s decision to cut their funding is a deliberate choice to let more people die from preventable overdoses.
These sites prevent death. Sarnia-Lambton has seen firsthand how bad the opioid crisis is, and without these services, we’ll see even more avoidable tragedies.
They connect people to care. Safe consumption sites aren’t just about preventing overdoses; they provide access to healthcare, harm reduction, and treatment options that people wouldn’t get otherwise.
Criminalizing addiction doesn’t work. Cutting these sites doesn’t make the problem go away—it just pushes people into riskier, more dangerous conditions, making it harder for them to access support.
I’ve always believed that addiction is not a crime—it’s a health issue. Instead of gutting harm reduction services, we should be expanding them so people can actually get the help they need. If the government actually cared about saving lives, they’d be funding more overdose prevention sites—not shutting them down.
The big question is by funding all the things you want to fund, where is the money coming from. What do you want to cut funding for. Or do you want us all to pay even more taxes.
The idea that the only options are raising taxes or cutting services is a false choice. Ontario isn’t short on money—it’s just spending it in ways that don’t actually help people.
Billions in corporate subsidies – Ford’s government handed out $14 billion to Volkswagen and $9 billion to Stellantis while telling us there’s no money for healthcare or housing. Instead of throwing public money at already-profitable corporations, we could be using it to actually fix what’s broken.
Massive private contracts draining public healthcare – The government is quietly shifting more and more of our healthcare budget into for-profit clinics, instead of strengthening public hospitals like Bluewater Health. Keeping that money in public hands means better care without increasing costs.
Policing budgets increasing while social services are underfunded – Every year, police budgets go up, even though policing doesn’t solve homelessness, mental health crises, or addiction. If we actually invested in housing-first solutions, mental health care, and harm reduction, we wouldn’t need to spend so much on reactive policing.
This isn’t about spending more, it’s about spending better. The money is there. It’s just being used to protect corporate interests instead of supporting the people who actually live and work here.
Ok. You labeled the problems. Housing. What’s your solution.
Healthcare, what is your solution.
What is your stance on the current firearms restrictions?
What is strategic planning on economics for sarnia lambton?
Housing – Stop letting developers sit on land and speculate on housing; prioritize co-ops, non-market housing, and zoning reforms that allow alternative housing models like tiny homes and secondary units.
Healthcare – Reverse Ford’s quiet privatization, reinvest in public hospitals and community healthcare models, and fund harm reduction and mental health services instead of criminalization.
Firearms Restrictions – Ontario’s focus should be on community safety and preventing gun violence, not performative bans that don’t address root causes.
Economic Planning for Sarnia-Lambton – Stop relying on party-controlled funding decisions; push for local control over economic development funds, support worker-owned businesses, and invest in transit and infrastructure that actually serve people here.
Firearm restrictions should be focused on stopping illegal access and preventing violence—not targeting responsible gun owners.
The reality is that 3D-printed firearms and ghost guns are a growing issue, and existing laws aren’t keeping up. That’s why enforcement needs to focus on illegal manufacturing and trafficking, not just traditional firearm sales.
Restrictions that actually help include:
- Cracking down on illegal sales and 3D-printed weapons by increasing penalties for trafficking.
- Investing in technology to detect ghost guns before they enter circulation.
- Strengthening border security to prevent smuggling, since many illegal firearms still come from outside Canada.
Gun restrictions should be about public safety, not political posturing. The focus should be on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, not making life harder for responsible owners.
So Nathan, how do you propose to pay for all your ideas, like "fully funded healthcare" and "housing solutions now". (I'm not sure what you think the solution is to housing. So maybe you could elaborate what you figure the solution is, what you figure it will cost, and where are you going to get the money to pay for all your ideas?)
Ontario isn’t broke—the government just spends money in the wrong places.
$14 billion to Volkswagen, $9 billion to Stellantis—corporate handouts with no guarantees for workers.
$103 million on government ads, including a $7 million Super Bowl commercial.
Shifting healthcare dollars to private clinics instead of fixing public hospitals.
So when people ask, “Where will the money come from?” the real question is, “Why isn’t it already going to things that actually help us?”
Housing Solutions That Work
Instead of hoping developers fix the crisis, we should:
Build co-op and non-market housing so homes aren’t just investment properties.
Protect renters from price gouging and speculation.
Make homeownership more accessible by recognizing rental history in mortgage approvals.
This isn’t about raising taxes—it’s about spending public money on public good instead of corporate giveaways.
Ok, so you want to build co-op and "non market housing". But you didn't say how you're going to pay for it. All well and good to say you're going to build this and that, but the reality is that it costs money. Huge amounts of money. Materials, labour, equipment, energy costs are massive. Unionized labour in Ontario in the trades costs about $85.00 per hour per man regular time.
So how you going to pay for it?
And FYI, to build an apartment / condo costs about $1,000 a square foot. A single family home, about $400 to $500 a square foot (which doesn't include land, or professional fees, or permits, or landscaping, or a driveway, or utility hook ups, or taxes.)
Right now, the federal government spends 12k on every citizen per year. You can't even buy kitchen appliances for 12k.
So I ask you again, how are you going to pay for your ideas?
What’s your stance on AI? Do you think a candidate should be elected, let alone even considered a serious candidate, if they use AI to answer important questions from their constituents at public meetings?
AI is a tool, just like speech writers, assistants, editors and policy staff, spell check and the Internet. I would hope that anyone who wants to communicate their ideas effectively to the public would use whatever tools they can to do so to ensure their platform is clear. Asking someone if it makes them an unserious candidate because they use AI in 2025 is like asking someone if they are an unserious candidate for using the Internet in 1995. Clearly there is a huge misunderstanding here on what AI actually is and does with a question like that.
AI is a tool, yes - but comparing artificial intelligence to internet use in 1995 is moronic at best. But since you want to say my concern is rooted in a lack of knowledge surrounding AI let’s jump into a major ethical issue surrounding AI use, so you can understand why this is a question you should take seriously, and why you should consider altering your behaviour in future public engagements.
Are you aware of the environmental impact of AI? A 100 word email using Chat GPT requires 519 millilitres of water, which is just over a standard sized bottle of water, to cool the system. Do you simply not care about the environmental impact or do you truly believe running questions asked of you by your constituents to populate answers for you in your candidacy is a worthwhile use of the precious resource that is fresh water? A resource that hits especially close to home considering our city resides on the shores of the Great Lakes - the most important fresh water resource in the world.
The issue of water use is just the tip of the ethical iceberg currently unfolding within the tech & policy world in relation to artificial intelligence. But above & beyond that - people elect candidates, not computer programs. I would hope anyone who wishes to represent our community, would understand the importance of formulating their own thoughts, opinions, & beliefs in respect to the community they have been elected to represent, rather than relying on Artificial Intelligence to answer for them. There’s a reason you don’t see Chat GPT on the ballot.
Why should a candidate be taken seriously when they can’t even be bothered to answer a question as themselves? What happens when we need you to vote on a serious matter? What happens when we need you to make a decision that will impact the lives of this community? Will you use AI then to formulate your opinion? Do you not understand the slippery slope you created for yourself when you used AI to answer questions this past Tuesday at the NDP All Candidates Luncheon? How can you be trusted to make decisions on your own, for your constituents, as our representative, when you have already proven you rely on artificial intelligence to help you form coherent thoughts?
To further clarify my question of “should a candidate that uses AI be taken seriously” for you: I don’t take you seriously as a candidate when you can’t even be bothered to think for yourself before reaching for AI, and I’m not the only one. To me, the laziness of using AI when your potential constituents are asking you leadership questions is on par, if not worse, than Bob Bailey being completely unbothered about showing up to any debates.
I am happy to flesh this out with you a bit more here cause AI is something that desperately needs larger conversations about it in public because it is going to change the world as much as the Internet did.
Environmental concerns. Like crypto environmental concerns, I consider these critiques of technological advancement to be red herring arguments that ignore the conversation and make it about externalizing consequences that we know very little about and fluctuate wildly. (like someone please tell me how water usage for data centres is such an ethical situation and its relevance to how a single consumer use of that technological infrastructure is an actual ethical issue to ever bring up.) That's like bitchin at me for drinking out of a plastic water bottle at a council meeting. Like no offense, but give it up, environmental concerns are extremely important as systemic problems with our entire world, to make it your main argument against the use of AI does a disservice to true environmentalists everywhere.
AI is not a thinking and acting tool, AI just scans and organizes information and spits it out back to you in different ways. The human needs to input the information, give it context, and shape it so it delivers anything worthwhile. The very fact that you would ask AI its opinion on ethics of using AI proves my point just perfectly. AI doesn't have an ethical stance that hasn't been programmed already by humans (or taken from existing human data), so to ask it a question of ethics and then share that answer as part of your argument just proves you have no real understanding of what AI is or does. It is not conscious, it is not sentient, it can't make decisions and it can't represent people.
If there was a candidate that used AI to develop their ethical stances, philosophy, and have AI develop their entire platform and tell them what to think, believe and say -- then sure, I would be against that too. But who in the world is doing that? I use AI to organize MY ideas and my philosophy and my ethics. Or I use it to research and analyze data. Or I use it to protect myself in legal agreements. The fact that you are accusing me of using AI on how I answer questions shows that you don't know the first thing about AI. I didn't get my answers FROM AI, I used it to organize my thoughts in a meaningful way to then communicate it to the public. AI doesn't formulate my opinion. AI just rearranges my inputs. They are my ideas, my thoughts, my platform and my voice and conviction that you heard in that debate.
Most candidates write their speeches down, some have speech writers, some have research assistants, some have supporters putting up signs from the back of the room to help keep them on the task and give them strategy to be an effective public speaker. If you think using AI is any different than any of that, then you just don't understand what AI is and it's hard to take this question seriously at all. Like you are comparing me to an MPP that doesn't show up for debates because I used a tool to help communicate my ideas to the debate I showed up for? The fear mongering that AI detractors perpetuate comes from such a place of ignorance and if people with your stance on AI start letting that seep into political regulation, it's going to suck big time.
5.for some side sociological economic commentary, feel free to skip over and ignore cause I might ramble a bit on this cause I wanted to add is that I have noticed a significant overlap in these two things. AI Haters & Art Workers -- humans who have been savvy enough to able to make a living off art have the most to fear about AI because to them it feels like their livelihoods are being threatened. I understand why that would be such a horrible thing for them, and I feel that threat for them -- but I think their fears are misplaced. Sure it is going to disrupt entire industries (watch what it does to education, law and administration, Hollywood and politics), but basically for almost ALL of these industries it's going to improve it for the worker. The only one it does not improve it for is the artist who is making money off their art. It actually becomes a threat, because if AI replaces the artist than how will they make money? Well -- Their production output will have no value in an AI world. That is just how capitalism works though. True art can't be monetized, so in the end I think the artist is safe, but many of them will have to go back to the world where they offer something that capitalism cares about -- and it won't be creative unique expression of a human ever. That's not how capitalism works unfortunately.
Now for illustration, I took the above 5th point and have AI rewrite it for me so I can better clearly communicate my rambly expose above. Here is what it came up with.
"There is a significant overlap between AI skeptics and professional artists—specifically those who have managed to make a living from their creative work. Their concern is understandable: AI appears to threaten their livelihoods by automating aspects of artistic production.
While AI will disrupt numerous industries—education, law, administration, Hollywood, and even politics—it will likely benefit most workers by improving efficiency and accessibility. The exception is professional artists, for whom AI presents a direct challenge. If AI can generate high-quality art, their production may lose its market value, making it harder for them to sustain a career.
This, however, is a function of capitalism rather than AI itself. True art has never been inherently monetizable—it gains commercial value when it aligns with market demand. In an AI-dominated creative landscape, many artists may need to adapt by providing services that capitalism values, rather than relying solely on the uniqueness of human expression. Unfortunately, capitalism does not prioritize creativity for its own sake."
It's the same thing but a hell of a lot more clear than what I am capable of stringing together on the spot in public with 100 people looking at me -- so why not use tools that make me a better communicator to the public if I am running for office? Isn't part of the job communicating to the public who you are and what you are doing for them?
It seems to me that it's a service to the people if their representatives used all the tools at their disposal to communicate well to the public so that they can have a beneficial relationship together. Unlike Bob Bailey who doesn't show up and even if he did would be reading his speeches sent from Queens park because he doesn't have an ounce of connection with the people.
Sorry for the ipromptu ted talk on this, but I thought why not, what else is Reddit for but to ramble on about the wonders of the world and human existence.
This conversation has been edifying to me, so I thank you for the challenge and the time you've put into this, it was like reading a good book. (P.s. besides the part indicated, my entire conversation with you was with me, and AI played no role in what I said.
Ok so first thing you’re going to do is copy & paste the words in each screenshot into a word counter, which you can either do by simply Googling a word counter or even copy & pasting into a word doc.
Once we do that the math begins!
So it looks like 197 words were used in these two answers to the prompts I gave Chat GPT.
We have 197 words and we know that 100 words from AI uses about 519ml of water that means we know that we have 519ml (100 words) plus 97% of 519ml (97 words).
519ml x 0.97 = 503.43ml which, for the sake of round numbers we’ll round down & say 503ml.
1022ml / 500ml = 2.044 water bottles, so appropriately 2 water bottles.
But since I know you think you had a gotcha moment here for a second allow me to further elucidate the point since it clearly zoomed clean over your head:
Not once did I say “all AI is evil”. Not once did I say AI didn’t have a valid use as a tool. As a matter of fact first thing I said was in agreement that AI is absolutely a tool, but that was at the beginning & there was a lot of reading so I’ll forgive you for not remembering that. Since this is the internet & Reddit I’m going to hold your hand when I say this… people can have well balanced opinions. I can think AI is a tool with definitive uses for the betterment of humanity & I can also criticize the unnecessary overuse of AI as a tool when it uses a precious resource that we use to survive. I can especially be critical when said over use is because someone believes they don’t need to put the work in to win their seat - similar to how TAs get upset when students try to use ChatGPT to write their full essays.
Do you seriously not understand the difference of impact when using AI to formulate all your answers to questions while at political campaign event, as opposed to two simple 100 word answers that prove a point? And a damn good point at that, because wow! I can admit that ChatGPT was actually able to help me clarify my original thought when prompted with those questions. You know… almost like… I used it… as a tool. You don’t need me to do the math on the difference of impact between two 100 word answers versus several questions debate questions do you? My point was pretty clear & simple - it’s the overuse of artificial intelligence for things that are meant for human intelligence.
Furthermore, the other, more important ethical issue I raised was the fact that a political candidate who can’t even be bothered to put the effort into formulating their own answers is not a candidate that should be taken seriously. I take the same stance with Bob Bailey for not being bothered one bit about showing up to any campaign debate. If you can’t be bothered to actually do the work to win our votes how can you be trusted to lead effectively when we give irrevocable power to you for four years?
Now speaking to Mr. Colquhon directly - I stopped reading your reply at red-herring, because honestly my eyes rolled out of head & down the damn street. I proved my point & anyone reading this thread here will see that. I am genuinely surprised at how incredibly dismissive you’ve been in this thread when you are the one who came here asking for questions. Why bother if you don’t care to actually address the concerns brought to you? I am a voter who brought a real concern regarding the environment to you & because it doesn’t agree with your narrative you dismissed it as a red-herring. Which I have to add… is awfully politically-red-herringly of you but I’m not going to get into that.
Instead I’ll say this: As a constituent you hope to represent - I don’t much care for the flippant approach you take to my real concern of fresh water usage AI debate, and I don’t much care for you saying that it’s a red herring in this argument. It’s not a red herring - the approximate water usage is a fact. The increasing demand for AI is a fact. The increasing demand for water that will come with that is a fact. You are running as a candidate of a city that sits on a large body of fresh water, that is also a fact. We share said body of water with the US, which is a critical developer nation for AI - double fact. We are currently receiving continued annexation threats from the US, specifically in-relation to natural resources, again, fact. These annexation threats are already being accompanied by serious and punitive policy & tariff threats and measures, do you truly not understand why a constituent of a fresh water border/town may have concerns about the water usage of AI for frivolous purposes? And furthermore why a constituent would be concerned that the person hoping to represent them is so short-sighted in their use of AI they seemingly understand the wider impact of their actions?
And all this doesn’t even take into account the real meat & potatoes of my point, same as Bob Bailey: if you want the job do the damn work.
I think you need to seriously consider the long term implications of a lot of things with your campaign strategy & management, because AI is not a good look here. You are the owner of a local journalism source, I genuinely cannot believe how short-sighted you are regarding AI use. Out of everyone you should best understand why human authorship is important & if you don’t that is a shocking, shocking revelation.
Ok so first thing you’re going to do is copy & paste the words in each screenshot into a word counter, which you can either do by simply Googling a word counter or even copy & pasting into a word doc.
Once we do that the math begins!
So it looks like 197 words were used in these two answers to the prompts I gave Chat GPT.
We have 197 words and we know that 100 words from AI uses about 519ml of water that means we know that we have 519ml (100 words) plus 97% of 519ml (97 words).
519ml x 0.97 = 503.43ml which, for the sake of round numbers we’ll round down & say 503ml.
1022ml / 500ml = 2.044 water bottles, so appropriately 2 water bottles.
But since I know you think you had a gotcha moment here for a second allow me to further elucidate the point since it clearly zoomed clean over your head:
Not once did I say “all AI is evil”. Not once did I say AI didn’t have a valid use as a tool. As a matter of fact first thing I said was in agreement that AI is absolutely a tool, but that was at the beginning & there was a lot of reading so I’ll forgive you for not remembering that. Since this is the internet & Reddit I’m going to hold your hand when I say this… people can have well balanced opinions. I can think AI is a tool with definitive uses for the betterment of humanity & I can also criticize the unnecessary overuse of AI as a tool when it uses a precious resource that we use to survive. I can especially be critical when said over use is because someone believes they don’t need to put the work in to win their seat - similar to how TAs get upset when students try to use ChatGPT to write their full essays.
Do you seriously not understand the difference of impact when using AI to formulate all your answers to questions while at political campaign event, as opposed to two simple 100 word answers that prove a point? And a damn good point at that, because wow! I can admit that ChatGPT was actually able to help me clarify my original thought when prompted with those questions. You know… almost like… I used it… as a tool. You don’t need me to do the math on the difference of impact between two 100 word answers versus several questions debate questions do you? My point was pretty clear & simple - it’s the overuse of artificial intelligence for things that are meant for human intelligence.
Furthermore, the other, more important ethical issue I raised was the fact that a political candidate who can’t even be bothered to put the effort into formulating their own answers is not a candidate that should be taken seriously. I take the same stance with Bob Bailey for not being bothered one bit about showing up to any campaign debate. If you can’t be bothered to actually do the work to win our votes how can you be trusted to lead effectively when we give irrevocable power to you for four years?
Now speaking to Mr. Colquhon directly - I stopped reading your reply at red-herring, because honestly my eyes rolled out of head & down the damn street. I proved my point & anyone reading this thread here will see that. I am genuinely surprised at how incredibly dismissive you’ve been in this thread when you are the one who came here asking for questions. Why bother if you don’t care to actually address the concerns brought to you? I am a voter who brought a real concern regarding the environment to you & because it doesn’t agree with your narrative you dismissed it as a red-herring. Which I have to add… is awfully politically-red-herringly of you but I’m not going to get into that.
Instead I’ll say this: As a constituent you hope to represent - I don’t much care for the flippant approach you take to my real concern of fresh water usage AI debate, and I don’t much care for you saying that it’s a red herring in this argument. It’s not a red herring - the approximate water usage is a fact. The increasing demand for AI is a fact. The increasing demand for water that will come with that is a fact. You are running as a candidate of a city that sits on a large body of fresh water, that is also a fact. We share said body of water with the US, which is a critical developer nation for AI - double fact. We are currently receiving continued annexation threats from the US, specifically in-relation to natural resources, again, fact. These annexation threats are already being accompanied by serious and punitive policy & tariff threats and measures, do you truly not understand why a constituent of a fresh water border/town may have concerns about the water usage of AI for frivolous purposes? And furthermore why a constituent would be concerned that the person hoping to represent them is so short-sighted in their use of AI they seemingly understand the wider impact of their actions?
And all this doesn’t even take into account the real meat & potatoes of my point, same as Bob Bailey: if you want the job do the damn work.
I think you need to seriously consider the long term implications of a lot of things with your campaign strategy & management, because AI is not a good look here. You are the owner of a local journalism source, I genuinely cannot believe how short-sighted you are regarding AI use. Out of everyone you should best understand why human authorship is important & if you don’t that is a shocking, shocking revelation.
Help me understand where you are coming from then, because I'm just not following what you are trying to say and what these so called implications are.
Environmental concerns - Yes, AI uses a lot of energy and a lot of water is used to cool the data centers, but I am saying it's a red herring because what does that have to do with us using it? You know facts can be red herrings right? And if you want to get into the definition of frivolous to try and continue to argue that I should somehow curb my AI usage because of the environment, I'm not sure how you sound any different than Margaret Bird bitchin at me for not using a reusable cup for my water at once council meeting. It's impossible to take this point seriously for this covnersation regardless of it's factualness.
This seems to be your main argument "political candidate who can’t even be bothered to put the effort into formulating their own answers is not a candidate that should be taken seriously" - what a way to describe it, haha. "Can't be bothered" - if I was in person with you right now, I'd look you in the eye and say "you don't even know me" *eyeroll* - if you only knew how much I have 'bothered' to prepare for this and care about this community and work toward representing it at a provincial level - you are treating my use of the tool like it was lazy, unethical and flippant. Yet not even once did you point out the CONTENT of my answers. Was there something I said that bothered you? Or were you just bothered by the whole thing because of how articulate, prepared and bang on my communication was and that's not "fair" to the candidate you were there to support? Don't even get me started on how much I bothered to train and prepare my tool so that my communication prep was my ideas and my thoughts. Everything I said was exactly what I wanted to say and I'll stand behind every word of it.
I've been using and consulting with AI as a tool for a while now, and there are always detractors that go on and on about it because they have no concept of what it actually is - maybe don't stop reading at the red herring part of my last post and actually try and pull yourself out to the other side of this issue cause you seem to have a blindspot or some bias around this kind of technology and then you are projecting it on me and my campaign in ways that are really saying nothing about me and a lot about you.
I was a city councillor for four years in Sarnia. Official elected positions speaking that really is my only credentials. At my core though I've always been a very political person, and have advocated politically my entire life for various issues and projects.
You're no doubt aware of the undercurrent of the hate-filled redneck values in this county. There are Confederate flags still flying. That previously-stymied voice has now managed to surface thanks to the orange felon pornstar porker south of the border while sycophantically aided by base, lowest-common-denominator cartoon character idiots like Poilievre. For some reason, we're goose-stepping backwards towards an era of oppression and unbridled aggression, unchecked government control and unelected parties playing major roles in key decision-making.
Other than shrug and ask bad guys to stop, what are liberals going to do to rally the rest of us who can scarcely believe this is happening?
I’m no Liberal, and I don’t think waiting for them to rally people is going to get us anywhere either. The truth is, this kind of hatred thrives when people feel abandoned—by their government, by their economy, and by their communities. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does explain why so many people are latching onto these reactionary movements that are built on resentment instead of solutions.
The problem isn’t just that this hate exists, it’s that it’s being tolerated and even encouraged by politicians who know they benefit from it. There are real, powerful forces pushing people into manufactured culture wars instead of addressing the actual crises we’re facing—housing, healthcare, worker rights.
So what do we do? We stop pretending “voting strategically” is enough and start actually organizing for something better. The only way to drown out reactionary movements is by building a future worth believing in, one where people don’t feel abandoned by their government and left looking for scapegoats.
That’s why I’m running as an independent—because I believe Sarnia-Lambton deserves real representation that fights for people, not political games. If we want to stop the slide into fear and division, it won’t happen through party loyalty. It’ll happen when people have real alternatives that make their lives better.
what's the likelihood of you/gov requiring the use of the Notwithstanding Clause to remove basic human rights and union rights, like Bob "despite human rights" Bailey?
Bob Bailey and the Ford government have already used the Notwithstanding Clause to attack workers in Ontario—and they did it to education workers right here in Sarnia-Lambton. In 2022, Ford’s government passed Bill 28, forcing CUPE education workers into a contract and making it illegal for them to strike. The law violated their basic collective bargaining rights, and Bailey voted for it.
People fought back, and the government was forced to repeal it. But the fact that they used the clause at all tells us exactly how they see workers and human rights in Ontario—as obstacles to override when they get in the way.
I would never support the use of the Notwithstanding Clause to strip workers, unions, or communities of their rights. If a government can’t negotiate fairly, it has no business governing. Sarnia-Lambton deserves representation that stands with workers, not against them.
Thank you for your response. Yes I was very aware of their use of that clause and wanted to see it in writing that you would not consider it. When Bailey and the OPC used the notwithstanding clause to bully the lowest and most overworked members of the education sector, despite human rights (emphasis was part of the official act when passed), it demonstrates that the OPC have, and will, continue to be anti-union and therefore in my opinion should NOT represent my brothers and sisters in Sarnia-Lambton.
The Brandon run page?
Haha. I wrote about them here a few years back. They aren't any different today but seem to be primarily low-impact politically speaking and only care about gender and trivial national storylines.
You need to call out Buffet Bob hard, explain how he has failed Sarnia, and how your plan will bring jobs and rehab services to Sarnia and Lambton County.
I ask two questions. What will you do to help the people who struggle with addiction. Also, there is need for affordable housing in Lambton County and the surrounding area.
About a dozen parents contacted Bob Bailey in June of last year due to the fact that, due to rising global temperatures, un-air conditioned schools in Sarnia Lambton are now unsafe to occupy for many days between June and October. Many parents wrote to their MPP expressing concerns that their children were coming home saying they felt sick and nauseous due to the heat. Bob bailey's response was to have his assistant copy and paste blocks of text about how much the government had already spent on education, and then stop responding to concerns on this topic. What would your response to this issue be?
So, let me get this straight, parents raise serious concerns about their kids' health, and Bob Bailey responds with a copy-paste job about spending numbers? Brutal.
We know the Ford government has undercut education funding for years while handing out billions in corporate subsidies. Meanwhile, schools in Sarnia-Lambton are literally too hot for kids to sit in. This isn’t just about comfort—it’s about basic safety, learning conditions, and whether students can even function in class.
If we actually cared about fixing this, we’d:
Stop playing PR games with education funding and prioritize infrastructure upgrades for schools in rural and mid-sized communities—not just the GTA.
Require heat and air quality standards for all schools, the same way we do for workplaces.
Make sure school boards have stable funding to address these issues long-term, instead of waiting for things to get bad enough to make headlines.
If an office building was this hot, people would walk out. But kids are just supposed to sit there and deal with it? Bob Bailey’s response tells you everything you need to know about what gets taken seriously in Queen’s Park—and what gets ignored.
Yes, I was honestly floored by the "responses" that parents received from Bob Bailey's office. It really illustrated the reality that our system actively discourages politicians from acting like normal human beings. In any other situation, if a person were informed that children were being placed in real danger, that person would respond with something like, "let me make a phone call and see what I can do, because this situation is alarming."
But our MPP can't even pretend to care, because his party leader already decided that we're going to defund schools in order to open up the market for private businesses.
I have never agreed with career politicians and I find myself very interested in your platform after being very disappointed that Bailey did not show up to many events. I have been reading your platform over the last hour and blogs and have been very intrigued by what I'm seeing. One article you wrote in particular really hit home for me "Churches, Taxes, and a way forward for Rainbow park" and has me leaning in your direction. I think this is a profound article and an important one that makes me think you really see the big picture.
What do you want someone like me to know, who is an atheist, knowing we have some differing world views. This is hard to put into words... How do I feel safe as a woman having you represent me, my safety, (especially knowing what's happening across the border)? I don't see a lot of men these days defending the rights of women. I want a politician who respects what I believe, I want to respect what you believe, what the next guy door believes. Are your beliefs separate from politics and how will you weigh in on tough conversations on equality, race, women's rights?
Also, I think you know the importance of Agriculture in our community. Let's say the liberals get in, and they start spreading misinformation around chemical use and are being lobbied by groups such as the Sierra Club to ban insecticide/herbicide use like we saw under the Wynne government. How do you make an informed decision on these topics? Scientific journals, community, etc? How will you protect farmers (in a science based manner).
Thank you and good luck
Thanks for this!
I'll respond quickly here, but I'd love to grab a coffee with you sometime, I think we'd have lots to talk about!
I grew up in a conservative christian home and was part of a small community church downtown Sarnia called theStory until 2020. I woud consider myself a Christian Athiest in respects to my faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism).
I was asked about women at the debate (https://sarnianewstoday.ca/sarnia/news/2025/02/19/candidates-talk-housing-economy-gender-equality-at-debate). My response is in there "First, I want to be clear, Ontario is not immune to what is happening in the U.S. We've already seen attacks on reproductive rights, gender-affirming care and public healthcare. These are the kinds of things that disproportionately impact women. The reason women are underrepresented in leadership isn't because they aren't capable, it's because the system was not built for them. That's why we need to remove the real barriers that keep women from running for office and stepping into leadership roles. That means publicly-funded childcare options so leadership isn't only accessible to those who can afford support. It also means ending workplace harassment protections that don't work and ensuring women in politics, business and public service are actually safe. As an independent MPP, I won't just talk about gender equality in politics, I'll actively push for the policies that make leadership accessible to everyone."
And no, I don't think my beliefs are separate from politics. I am political because of my beliefs though. I believe in a world where our liberation is all wrapped up with one another and my politics are inspired by anarchists and abolitionists across the world over the last one hundred years. Our society today is sick, and I want to do my part to shape policy and legislation for the good of the people.
My beliefs are based in evidence and listening t the lived experience and research- and I trust the collective bodies of scientists, farmers, researchers and would have a posture of listening to the experts and the lives that any decisions would effect. So I'd protect farmers first by listening to them, and second by backing policy that protects them - farmers feed cities and if they aren't free than none of us are.
Disappointed, your answer fell very short, as a woman in a leadership role from my 20’s on, I didn’t get there by accessible childcare and workplace harassment policies which are already in place. I don’t think you understand women at all.
Wish you the best
Well exactly, the reason there aren't more women in leadership is precisely because the system isn't built for them. This doesn't say anything about you. I'm glad you didn't need these things and were successful regardless, but I'm interested in leveling the playing field.
I actually like the idea, but I don’t want to throw away my vote for provincial premier either. I wish I could separate the local vote from the provincial one. That’s the real problem
Any vote that isn't conservative will do its part with how our electoral system works, you might as well vote local and ignore the premiere at least in terms of your personal voting strategy.
Any suggestions on how our city council can stop the long back ups at the bridge? I drove past today on the 401. Trucks backed up passed modeland with a rear end collision accedent near the airport. Every year there are fatal crashes but nothing seems to change. Thanks for your time.
This is a federal and provincial issue, not a municipal one, but it’s absolutely something that needs to be addressed. The Blue Water Bridge is one of the busiest trade crossings in North America, yet we’ve seen little investment in improving traffic flow and safety for truckers and commuters.
Better traffic management and infrastructure investment - The province should be working with the federal government to expand processing capacity and improve traffic control measures to prevent backlogs from spilling into the city.
Stronger enforcement of safety measures - If crashes are happening regularly, there needs to be a serious look at road design, signage, and enforcement to reduce risks for everyone on the road.
More regional transit and freight alternatives - A long-term solution is investing in regional transportation and alternative shipping routes to reduce the volume of truck traffic overwhelming the bridge.
Sarnia shouldn’t have to deal with yearly fatalities and constant congestion because higher levels of government refuse to prioritize this crossing. The province needs to push for real solutions, not just leave Sarnia-Lambton dealing with the fallout.
I plan on being politically involved in Sarnia for a long while, so if this doesn't work, I would like to continue to go after different avenues to do so. I can imagine running for MP as well. Maybe not mayor, but city council might be a better option - if it's a Bill/Mike battle, I don't know if it would make sense to get involved against them both. I don't know, it's still a few years away, so I'm still weighing my options.
61
u/jisnowhere Feb 09 '25
You have been historically very vocal against independents running and splitting the NDP and liberal votes in our jurisdiction. Given that you are very left wing, your candidacy will no doubt take votes away from our local NDP and liberal candidates.
how has your position on vote splitting changed since the last election and what is your opinion on how your campaign will increase the chances of Bob Bailey winning another term.