i am also disappointed by the disability tax credit's $200/month, which it does not appear as though i will qualify for because i don't have a disability tax credit. somebody needs to explain to ms. freeland that she missed the point of the legislation; i would not consider this to be a response to the legislation, and would expect further steps from the government, perhaps after a change in finance minister.

however, i've been trying to get the idea across for quite a long time that the primary issue facing disabled people in this country is not a lack of income but a lack of subsidized housing. it is not a good idea to just give us more money and tell us to go spend it in the market. there is  a distinct lack of infrastructure in this country regarding housing for those with disabilities.

if you give me more money, some rentier (like my landlord) will find a way to take it from me and, in the end, it's just another corporate handout to the rentier class. state aid should be structural and not in the form of bursaries.

so, yes, i agree that it's not what i was hoping for, but energy is better spent getting more subsidized housing built, anyways. this is a problem the society needs to build it's way out of, not one it should throw money at.

i remember when the united states published it's missile defense plans and showed everybody that the wreckage would fall harmlessly, outside of america's borders. somebody had to explain to dubya that the map showed a direct hit on the canadian city of edmonton, as collateral damage.

the kingdom of jordan has been very clear regarding it's motive in shooting down iranian missiles: it was to protect it's airspace. this ought to be read literally, as the jordanians had the choice of shooting these projectiles down outside of jordan or watching the united states and israel shoot them down inside jordan, with jordanian citizens as collateral damage.

the speaker of the ontario legislature is correct to ban the keffiyeh during debates. it is customary in british-canadian culture that political symbols not be worn during debates. i applaud the speaker for enforcing british canadian cultural values within british canadian political institutions. foreigners should be expected to follow our rules and conform to our culture, not the other way around.

that said, i also understand that this decision is being made within the context of certain laws being passed in quebec, which, as is so often the case, is ahead of the rest of the country. i have been making the argument for many years that the hijab is a political symbol and should be banned from the public sector workforce for that precise, exact reason. while it would not exactly by a ballot issue for me, i would like to see ontario adopt some of the laws that quebec has recently adopted regarding religious symbols in the workplace. perhaps this is a first step towards that desired and inevitable (and correct, in a secular society) end point.