Jump to content

Talk:Dalton McGuinty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction

[edit]

I have removed the section calling McGuinty a moderate fiscal conservative. I have called him a tax and spend liberal. This is not bias, it is the truth. I have used an article quoting budget FACTS about Dalton McGuinty by the non-partisan Canadian Taxpayers Federation as a reference. If anyone wishes to change this I would ask that they find a economic thinktank to back up any claim of being a fiscal conservative and not an article by a partisan newspaper like the Toronto Star. It is important this bio remain factual and balanced. John P--99.233.244.167 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

   Oh wow, that is not biased at all, what are you? Harper's girlfriend?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprint (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Someone has put up a section of a controversy of "broken promises". While it has been a campaign theme used by the opposition parties, it is quite unneccessary to put that section as the first line of his page as it is not really a controversy. A controversy is more like a politician cutting taxes an industry that he privately owns businesses in. It should be noted that this "controversy" is not recent and the issues mentioned happened in a 4 year timespan, and quite conveniently added before a provincial election.


It says his brother is the mpp for ottawa south, yet at the bottom of the page it states he is the current mpp???????

No, it says his brother is the MP (federal parliament) for Ottawa South. Dalton is the MPP (provincial parliament). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐


This is a very fine document in many ways. The details are, for the most part presented clearly and I basically really like it. Just a few comments; however, regarding typos and clarifying statements: -the word "resignation" reverses the 'i' and the 'g' -the statement 'class size' should mention that it has to do with schools because international readers might not understand what you're refering to -the 'budget in an auto parts plant' is also ambiguous for those who didn't previously know about this. I suggest adding the word 'presentation' after budget or'was presented.' Perhaps a brief statement (in brackets) telling why this location was unsuitable will give readers a glimpse of what type of government was in place before McGuinty rose to power. Here again, this will give international readers and Canadians outside of Ontario a clearer picture.

Thanks for the terrific info.

Mary Dempster

The tax hike controversy is already discussed in the "First year in office" section in a more even-handed way. The section that the anon editor is adding repeatedly does not conform to WP:NPOV, and repeats what appears elsewhere in the article. It is contentious and not needed. And yes, the fact that it is being added during the election period indicates that someone is trying to promote a political agenda. Ground Zero | t 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate current issue pertaining to Mr. McGuinty and it is controversial since he uses ignorance of the deficit as his sole line of defence for promise breaking when evidence clearly indicates otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.102.57 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition of controversial comes straight out of Oxford English dictionary: 

  Subject to controversy; open to discussion; debatable, questionable; disputed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.102.57 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that your "controversy" section does not met Wikipedia standards. It violates Wikipedia policy on maintaining a "neutral point of view":

  • it presents a lop-sided view of the facts in order to make an argument,
  • it contains original research (the part about presuming what McGuinty knew,
  • it gives undue emphasis to this issue over all other -- the rest of McGuinty's successes and failures are covered in chronological sections, while this is singled out.

Also, the section header you gave it violates the Wikipedia Style Guide.

I have moved the new sourced information that you added to the "first year" section and made it more factual and less argumentative in order to address these issues. I have also reorganized the discussion here to follow the Wikipedia style -- add comments to the bottom of a section on the talk page instead of creating new sections at the top. This makes it easier for other people to follow the discussion. thanks. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this. Thanks for all your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.102.57 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some information on Mcguinty's bio. Currently this read as a promo for Dalton McGuinty. It is not neutral. The information I have added is factual for it meets wikipedia's standards. If you require proof of the tax increase being the largest in Ontario history I will provide it. The Ontario Taxpayer Federation has which is a non partisan has been vocal about McGunity's tax increases and his spending thus he meets the definition of a tax and spend liberal not a fiscal conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.114.5 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terri McGuinty

[edit]

In most cases the maiden name is indicated instead of the married name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityhit (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Terri McGuinty need her own article? I don't think she is notable enough to have her own but should just re-direct here. Any one disagree? --YUL89YYZ 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not redirect to here because some may believe that Terri is Dalton (Terri could be a males name as well) and no the wife of Dalton. Bennyj600 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

The article contains both double-speak.


On social issues, McGuinty holds progressive views. He supports abortion rights, although he is personally pro-life.

McGuinty is generally regarded as a moderate fiscal conservative.

McGuinty undertook a series of well-choreographed events, including signing a taxpayer's protection pledge not to raise taxes...

How can one be support abortion rights and be pro-life at the same time. Mr. McGuinty has certainly proven that he supports abortion rights, as Ontario tax dollars are currently being used to kill unborn human babies in the womb of their mother.

nice NPOV comment there, anon. 24.57.195.9 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. McGuinty's record as a moderate fiscal conservative is also dubious. So far he has run two deficits in a row, and he has raised taxes despite his promise not to raise taxes. Richmondrk 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the NPOV notice -- the above comments are not sufficient grounds for its retention. CJCurrie 03:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible to put the wishes of one's constituents above the personal feelings held by a politician. What's unfortunate is that this doesn't happen more often. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Mr. McGuinty is a moderate fiscal conservative, I think this statement needs a citation. The Toronto Star recently called him (and John Tory) a "shrewd Bill Davis-style fiscal conservative of convenience" [1], but I'd like to find something a little less tongue-in-cheek. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real discussion is happening over at the other page. In any case, I see an AfD, which rightly failed as this is good content, but no signs of a previous merge proposal, so this has not been completely covered before. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section calling McGuinty a moderate fiscal conservative. I have called him a tax and spend liberal. This is bias, it is the truth. I have used an article quoting budget FACTS about Dalton McGuinty by the non-partisan Canadian Taxpayers Federation as a reference. If anyone wishes to change this I would ask that they find a economic thinktank to back up any claim of being a fiscal conservative and not an article by a partisan newspaper like the Toronto Star. It is important this bio remain factual and balanced.[2] --69.158.114.5 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McGuinty/Harper

[edit]

Dalton McGuinty's nuanced comments on the 2007 budget are not prima facie evidence of a working relationship with Stephen Harper. Why GoldDragon continues to return this reference is a mystery to me. CJCurrie 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to go the dubious route as I've modified the wording. Aside from that, why did CJCurrie make a big deal over "working relationship"? GoldDragon 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

I have assessed this as B Class, given its amount of detail and organization, although it desperately needs more referencing and in-line citations. I have assessed this as mid importance, as I do feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article, although unlikely to have an in-depth understanding. Cheers, CP 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why all other sitting First Ministers would not be given the same rating? --HJKeats 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Plants

[edit]

As far as I know, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment now intends to close all coal plants by 2014, the article says 2009, however multiple plants are still operational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.65.195 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Websites

[edit]

If the page for Tory has his websites and that of the PC, I think the same should be done to Mcguinty and other leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.9.8 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed paragrafs

[edit]

Its interesting to note that Dalton McGuinty is a Roman Catholic himself which could explain why he has nothing against status quo of Ontario education inequality. Canada's approach to religious education has sometimes been criticized as inconsistent. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The United Nations Human Rights Commission declared in 1999 that Ontario was in violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by only funding Catholic schools and not other faith-based schools. Newfoundland withdrew Catholic funding in 1996, via legislation that required approval from the Canadian House of Commons. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.


If such a act of Antisemitism and discrimination, against any other religion, is permissible for Dalton McGuinty the premier of the most populous province of Canada, how could Canada condemn other countries like Russia or China about human rights or religious freedom??? How could we force someone to listen to United Nations if we don’t listen??? Is Canada a good example??? There is no other western democratic country which violates the rights of its citizens just because they are minority and are not big percentage of electorate! John Tory was the only leader who maid a point to do something right and not just something that will help him to win an elections! here are the links:

here is the official un website saying it Decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee

and here is alink to wikepedia site saying the same thing (look under education)

and here is another one from wikepedia

and the fact that dalton mgcinty is a catholic you could see on this wikepidia site by his biografy what do you think Ntb613 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion can be found at WP:EAR. Adrian M. H. 11:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penguins and IPs

[edit]

an IP user has continually added an anecdote about McGuinty saying penguins live in the arctic. It is being added without a source. Now even if it did happen it does not seem notable to me. I might add the IP is adding this stuff and giving edit summaries that violate WP:CIVIL. Anyway, do others think this is a notable event? Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been significant news coverage, then sure. However, I found nothing relevant on a quick Google search, so probably not in this case. If not wholly imaginary, the event certainly didn't trigger an uproar. Politicians say dumb things all the time, but not all of them make national news.--Koppas (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a google search turns up nothing for me either. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
good research dickwads. Why dont you ask Mcguinty's office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.22.153 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be WP:CIVIL. Find a source, discuss is here to see if there is consensus, if there is then add it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when I do add a source yu will delete it anyways. thats what retards do, like your selves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.99.87 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this mythical source? Post it here and we can discuss it like adults. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ask Mcguinty's office. Thats not a goode enough source for you shitwits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.104.24 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again, show us the source, and to beat a dead horse, read WP:Civil Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The same editor using the same IP range in the 172's has been vandalizing non-Conservative politician pages for over 3 years and constantly making personnal attacks on editors who've reverted his edits. So basically, there is no sources he is providing for his stuff. Just a heads up guys about the very lengthy disruptive editing history of the so-called "AOL vandal"JForget 01:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He might have made the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests worse by sneaking in that legislation

[edit]

205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 67.225.10.116, 3 July 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Premier McGuinty has been criticized lately by various human rights groups for enabling extra police powers through new regulations made by the liberal cabinet that were unknown to protesters, or even to the opposition in government. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/28/g20-mcguinty-law644.html

67.225.10.116 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us wait a bit, this is, to me anyway, a bit of WP:RECENTISM Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with you and I've delisted the edit request, for the moment. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page?

[edit]

Shouldn't we rename this page to Dalton McGuinty Jr? I say this because there is another politician named Dalton McGuinty Sr, and it would help to reduce confusion. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow whatever practice the majority of reliable sources do. A quick look at the references used in this article shows that "Dalton McGuinty" predominates and "Dalton McGuinty Jr." is rarely used. We do give the "Jr." form immediately at the start of the article. Meanwhile, we definitely should have a hatnote for his father, so I've added one - please feel free to tweak it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. I was acting on the request of another user who would like to have seen the page renamed (see my talk page for more on that), but I understand why it wasn't. Thanks for the help, Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what you mean, and I agree that looking at the matter is warranted. Having looked at the matter, though, I don't see that an actual move is warranted. Needless to say, that's my own opinion and nothing else; if a consensus develops to move the article, I won't be bothered by that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 167

[edit]

In 1994, McGuinty voted against Bill 167 - a bill that would have given rights to gay couples. It was a significant event in Canadian, Ontario and gay rights history. To leave this out is to leave out a major part of his political history. Yes, had he a chance to change his vote now he might, but the fact remains that he voted to kill a gay rights bill in 1994.

Vote breakdown via user:bearcat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bearcat/Bill_167 75.119.243.175 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 167 was a poison pill introduced by the Rae government to split the opposition Liberals. Bill 45 was a bill previously introduced by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and that received the support of several Liberal & NDP MPP's prior to the vote on Bill 167. To say that McGuinty voted against a bill to give rights to gay couples as you have written it does not adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
There is no evidence McGuinty supported Bill 45. In fact, evidence shows that there was very litte support for it in the Ontario Liberal party. (and who calls a gay rights bill a "poison pill"?)
"We just heard on the Focus Ontario show on the weekend Mr Murphy's own whip, Mr Mahoney, say that there might be six votes for Bill 45 in the Liberal Party and they're probably soft votes. He said that he himself would not be supporting it." Committee Transcripts.
Also of note in the transcripts: "[Bill 45] fell far short of what the gay and lesbian community wanted."
The fact remains, McGuinty voted against Bill 167, and this bill was a historic first for any government in Canada. The defeat of this bill was a massive step backwards for same-sex rights. I'd also note that it seems references to it have been removed from other relevant Wikipedia pages. 75.119.243.175 (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided no outside sources for any of your claims. Also, looking at Hansard, there were more Liberals supporting Bill 45 than opposing. And there is nothing indicating that McGuinty opposed Bill 45. Your section as is does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and should not be included.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was Bill 167 and its defeat a significant moment in the history of the struggle for Gay rights in Canada? Yes. Did McGuinty vote against it? Yes. These are facts. Did he support another bill that never even made it to a vote? No idea. You don't want Bill 167 mentioned because you're a Liberal and you don't want anyone to know McGuinty voted against Bill 167. 75.119.243.175 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do not understand how it works here IP. Mr No Funny is simply following policy, his politics are not important, and mine are not either. Indeed neither are yours. Comment on content not on other editors please. You will need sources please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then add: "In 1994, McGuinty voted against Bill 167 - a bill that would have given rights to gay couples." This is a fact. If this fact is omitted, one can only assume this page is run by Liberal party members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.191.212 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Wrettyfugi, 1 August 2011

[edit]

In the section "First term (2003–2007)" in the subsection "Second Year" there is an improper link to equalization.

"but McGuinty pointed to the special deals worked out by the federal government with other provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia) as compromising the nature of equalization."

The link is to the electrical engineering concept but should be to the political concept. The correct link should be to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments

or even more specifically to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada


Thanks. Wrettyfugi (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done changed the link to Equalization payments in Canada Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the bias of this page's editors

[edit]

Why is there no mention that McGuinty voted against an early bill in the struggle for gay rights in Ontario? It was a historic vote yet it's missing from his page? One can only assume this page is edited by the Liberal Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.191.212 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. One can actually only assume that editors are following policy and are not here to push a POV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They refuse to add McGUinty voted against Gay rights Bill 167. It's still not there because the Liberals who operate this page know it will hurt him. They are not following a policy as others who voted for this bill have had it added to their pages? Why not McGuinty? Because the Liberals who operate this page don't want it here. Why is it included on other former MPP pages and not on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.163.118 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

[edit]

Please remove all of the below claims/sentences immediately, they do not have any proper source and are also a lie, accept only cited information about this person please.

"Please Delete McGuinty's first term in opposition was difficult. He was often criticized for lacking charisma and being uncomfortable in the media scrums, and was described as ineffective by the province's tabloid press.[citation needed] Although Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris was not especially strong in media relations, the general consensus was that McGuinty was the more awkward of the two. The governing Progressive Conservatives played up McGuinty's low profile by defining him as "not up to the job" in a series of television advertisements. McGuinty's management of the Liberal Party was also criticized. He was forced to reverse himself on a decision to hire his brother Brendan (later the chief of staff to Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli) as principal secretary. His decision to replace former leadership rival Joe Cordiano with Gerry Phillips as Deputy Leader in 1998 angered some in the province's Italian community.[citation needed] McGuinty's performance in the 1999 election was widely criticized, particularly in its early weeks. He appeared unfamiliar with his party's platform in the buildup to the election, and by all accounts delivered a poor performance in the televised leader's debate, being unable to defend several first term gaffes.[3] He was also criticized when, in response to a question by late CITY-TV journalist Colin Vaughan, he described Mike Harris as a "thug".[citation needed] McGuinty's Liberals however enjoyed the support of Ontario's public-sector unions in this election, who hoped to defeat the governing Conservatives by strategic voting. The unions had abandoned their tradition backing for the New Democratic Party after former Premier Bob Rae overrode collective agreements through the Social Contract.[citation needed], because it has no source whatsoever and is a lie"

Asbel01 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Abhishek  Talk 16:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are right. Info should either be sourced or excluded from the article. I have reverted someone who is trying to re-add this same unsourced info.199.119.233.156 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

centrist but in moderation

[edit]
McGuinty is generally regarded as holding moderately center to left views on economic issues

Can one be extremely or radically center-to-[anywhere]? In other words, does "moderately center to left" say anything that wouldn't be said as well by "center-left" without the adverb? —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for now. But one day, we'll (apparently) discover the Neutral Planet. A shade of greyish that would make even the most moderate Earthlings look downright ambitious. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dalton McGuinty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dalton McGuinty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dalton McGuinty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalton_McGuinty&oldid=1204966126"