Talk:Steve Gilchrist

Canadian Tire?
I've heard of Gilchrist's work with Canadian Tire. Can we get an external reference on that? This article appears to contain quite a bit of original research. --Regularstormy 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: restore CanTire controversy once I have the sources. CJCurrie 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the information, with citations. Unfortunately, in each case, the newspaper story is too old for a free link.  Blotto adrift 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both newspaper stories were taken from EBSCO's Canadian Reference Centre, available at your local public library. Blotto adrift 13:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And, if you research further, you will see that the article based on the July 19th Canadian Press news release was invalidated by the replacement release issued by CP on July 26th. Obviously, the fact that CP agreed that the original release was inaccurate and libelous means that any derivative of that release is equally tainted. Feel free to quote the July 26th press release to your heart's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.180.115 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The other article you cite is based on rumour and innuendo and is equally invalid. Rumours don't constitute fact and have no place in this or any other Wikipedia reference. The fact is that neither Gilchrist nor Proszanski were ever charged with any wrongdoing - media speculation and opposition posturing notwithstanding. The reality is that the developers wanted to eliminate a threat to their destruction of the Oak Ridges Moraine and they were careful to ensure there was no written accusation, nor any individual who made any specific allegations. Instead, they simply hoped that innuendo would accomplish, behind the scenes, what they couldn't hope to do in public. Unfortunately, their efforts had the opposite effect and, by attempting to create a controversy with Gilchrist, they raised the profile of the Moraine enough that the government had no choice but to agree to the outright ban on development on the Moraine that he had first announced on July 20, 1999. If there was anything scandalous about this entire issue, it was the attempt by the developers to bully the province through innuendo - unless you think that that is a legitimate way to influence government policy!69.158.180.115 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting perspective, but it's not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The mainstream media reported accusations that Gilchrist and Proszanski engaged in questionable practices; these accusations set in motion a series of events that resulted in Gilchrist's permanent removal from cabinet.  It's entirely appropriate for our biography page to present these facts in a neutral, balanced fashion.  CJCurrie 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree. The passage clearly states that Gilchrist was exonerated and the use of words like "accused" and "alleged" clearly indicate that they were never proven.  Eliminating this section entirely leaves out an important part of Gilchrist's political career, just or not - indeed, as it now reads, it infers that he retained the Municipal Affairs portfolio until he lost his seat, which is extremely inaccurate.  If you can think of a way to present this in a more neutral manner, please do so, but eliminating the passage altogether without replacing it decreases the quality of this article - indeed, as it stands, the article is inaccurate.  Incidentally, I have tried to find a reference to the 26 July release but have not had any luck despite searching databases, CP, MarketWire and Gilchrist's own website.  A link to a retraction or some sort of indication of what the 26 July release said would be helpful.Blotto adrift 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section has been re-added. Appreciate a response to the comments above and/or an an attempt to rewrite the content without deleting it altogether.  Blotto adrift 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem appropriate that those offering inaccurate references would be the ones facing the onus of accuracy. Having said that, to facilitate matters, here is the replacement press release sent by CP on July 26th, 2007, in its entirety:


 * Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies names former Ontario politician as VP of government relations


 * BOWMANVILLE, Ont. (CP) – Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies Inc. has named former Ontario politician Steve Gilchrist its vice-president of industry and government relations.


 * Gilchrist was also the province's first commissioner of alternative energy and has been on the board of directors for the Washington-based National Hydrogen Association.


 * "He is probably one of the most experienced and passionate champions of ‘green technologies' in Canada and he will make a superb first addition to the management team presently being assembled at HHT," Ira Lyons, president of Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies, said in a release.


 * The company distributes a patented hydrogen fuel-injection system that is installed as an add-on to diesel and gasoline engines to improve fuel consumption and reduce emissions of several gases, including carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.


 * As alternative energy commissioner, Gilchrist was involved in various government initiatives that encouraged conservation, including a rebate program for people switching to energy-efficient appliances.


 * He also served briefly as municipal affairs and housing minister in the cabinet of Conservative Premier Mike Harris in 1999 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.180.115 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to address some of these concerns. You have provided a second release, but can you provide some sort of proof that this one replaced the first one?  It appears that they were merely written for different sources - the first one for the regular media, the second for the energy industry media and likely by Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies itself.  The latter would be more interested in the specifics of the appointment, not Mr. Gilchrist's political career.  Also, the second part of the paragraph makes it sound like he was singlehandedly responsible for the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Act, even though he was MMAH for only a short time.  Can you provide a citation for his contributions?  Also, calling it "single biggest barrier to urban sprawl by municipalities that comprise the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)" should also require a citation.  Blotto adrift (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1) The first release (badly done) was, in fact, in response to a simple notice by a company that Mr. Gilchrist had a new position. CP had taken extraordinary license and had turned that announcement into something quite different. After being forced to revise their original release, it is hardly surprising that the second release basically followed the format of the original corporate release. (The original corporate release, on which CP based it's original and replacement releases, can be found here: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070719/0280227.html) 2) Perhaps you can find a reference to any politician, prior to July 20, 1999, the day that Gilchrist announced a complete ban on all development on the Oak Ridges Moraine, who had ever raised the Moraine as an issue. Failing that, the history of the public awareness of the Moraine can be traced, in large measure, to that announcement and the response by the development industry. 3) Neither Gilchrist nor his lawyer were ever accused of any specific wrongdoing. An anonymous complaint (conveyed by the head of the developers association) was the inspiration for the investigation. The content of the complaint was never made public and a variety of media outlets which speculated as to the nature of the complaint were successfully sued by Gilchrist and/or his lawyer and retractions were published ( I don't recall the entire list, but the Sun chain and the Osprey chain both lost). In light of the retractions, obviously the original articles are invalid and unworthy of reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshmintz (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information. Given your knowledge of the affair, can you provide a date or approximate date when the retractions were published and a newspaper?   Were they in the Star or just the Osprey & Sun chains as mentioned?


 * I still have some concerns with the second part of the paragraph. Gilchrist was Minister when the process began, but over two years passed between the introduction and passing of the Act.  And the previous paragraph states "..he began the political debate that, eventually, resulted in the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine, a huge greenbelt north of the City of Toronto," so his connection with the eventual protection of the Moraine is provided.  Also, I would say that the addition of the phrase "...allegations by the development industry after his public commitment to stop all construction on the Oak Ridges Moraine" alludes to some sort of concerted action on the part of the development industry to discredit or get revenge on Gilchrist.  We would be trading one set of allegations for another.


 * I propose the following paragraph:

Gilchrist stepped aside as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to defend himself from allegations by the development industry in October 1999. The allegations were proved to be unfounded and he was exonerated, but was not returned to cabinet. Gilchrist assumed a number of other roles in the government after 1999; he was elected as Chair of the Standing Committee on General Government and on April 252002, was appointed as Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Energy.


 * I believe that this states the facts only without speculation on the 1999 Affair, additional comment on Gilchrist's role in the passage of the Act or the effect of the Act. Comments?  Blotto adrift (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the edits to the corporate descriptions are fine with me. Referring to companies as "leading" can be construed as POV (or advertising), but stating their relative size works better.  Blotto adrift (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse this proposed compromise, except for the fact that it leaves out all reference to Gilchrist's Canadian Tire conviction. I seem to recall that the media's coverage of this situation was interpreted (by some, at least) as playing a role in Harris's decision not to return Gilchrist to cabinet. CJCurrie (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blotto, I think that your wording ably captures the essence of the issue, save for one glaring omission. As part of mounting the defense against the developers, it is a matter of fact that he publicly championed the protection of the Moraine and it was, ironically, the very fact that the developers had opened the can of words with Gilchrist that ultimately led the media to highlight the merits of protecting that natural feature and, in turn, the government had no choice but to make the land off limits for virtually all development. I would suggest, therefore, that the wording you have proposed be amended by adding "and he was actively involved in the campaign which, ultimately, led to the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine." I hope you would find this an acceptable amendment.Freshmintz 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe, Freshmintz, that we should take care not to turn this article into a promotional work for Mr. Gilchrist. (I'm well aware of Gilchrist's views on the Moraine and on environmental protection generally, and I'm willing to give him credit as one of the few right-wingers in Canada who genuinely takes this issue seriously.  That being said, we shouldn't portray him as some sort of green saviour.)  CJCurrie 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this to address Freshmintz's comments:


 * On June 17, 1999, Gilchrist was named Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He stepped aside as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to defend himself from allegations by the development industry in October 1999. The allegations were proved to be unfounded and he was exonerated, but was not returned to cabinet.


 * While Minister, Gilchrist was responsible for co-ordinating the forced amalgamation of municipal governments in Ottawa, Hamilton and Sudbury. The political debate on the future of the Oak Ridges Moraine also began during his tenure.  He remained active on the file after his resignation until the passage of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in 2001.


 * Canadian Tire - Freshmintz, do you have any comments? It is a fair question as to why he wasn't invited back into cabinet.


 * I should also add that I'm having trouble accessing the database from which the originally cited 2007 Guelph Mercury article came from right now, but I can say that it did include a statement to the effect that environmentalists considered Gilchrist an important ally regarding the Moraine. Blotto adrift 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, got it - it says "During his time with the Harris government, Gilchrist was considered by environmentalists as a key supporter that helped protect the Oak Ridges Moraine greenbelt near Toronto." Blotto adrift 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Added revised paragraph. Blotto adrift (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
The article is in needs to have more sources listed. Reginald Perrin 01:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Resignation as candidate
While it may bother the Liberal attempting to post spurious and inaccurate data that Gilchrist left politics for an honourable reason, that just happens to be the case. As someone who served on the riding association executive with him, I can tell you that the dates of the nomination and the withdrawal are wrong and, in fact, Gilchrist supplied notice of his intentions back in January - prior to the extraneous issue to which the poster alludes. Furthermore, I now have a copy of the Hill Times article and the poster is lying when he/she states the reason for his withdrawal. It goes into great detail to state the reason was the pursuit of the renewable energy project in Ghana and, while it suggests "others" have "speculated" that there may have been another factor contributing to his withdrawal, that speculation doesn't equal fact. They pose the question to Gilchrist, in the article, and he expressly denies that anything other than the pressure to concentrate on the energy project, plus the fact that the Liberals won't develop a spine prior to the fixed election date of October 2009, had any impact on his decision and, to reiterate, his indication that he was leaving pre-dated the matter involving his father. So get out of the gutter and quit indulging in mud-slinging - it isn't factual and, therefore, unworthy of being in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.185.11 (talk • contribs)

Upon reading a cached version of the Hill Times article here I have to agree with the anon. I've removed the following passage from the wikipedia article:


 * ''April 14, 2008, The Hill Times reported that the reason for Gilchist stepping down was his father, Gordon Gilchrist's racist, anti-immigrant rant in a local newspaper in February, 2008.

What the Hill Times article actually says is:


 * Steve Gilchrist, Conservative Party candidate in the Ontario riding of Ajax-Pickering stepped down two weeks ago to pursue a job opportunity as an environmental consultant.

Later on the article says:


 * some Liberals who spoke to The Hill Times on condition of anonymity speculate that Mr. Gilchrist's decision to step down as a Tory candidate could be related to a controversy that his father, Gordon Gilchrist, a former two-term MP, is involved in in the Port Hope, Ont., area where he's currently a school board trustee.

So it's quite misleading to say that the Hill Times reported that Gordon Gilchrist's letter is the reason Steve Gilchrist stepped down since the article does not say that at all. Rather, it says that he stepped down to pursue a job opportunity and later says that some Liberals "speaking on condition of anonymity" are suggesting a link between the two events. Frankly, I don't think speculation from an anonymous source in a rival party suggesting that the two events "could be" related passes muster for inclusion in the article given our rules regarding biographies of living persons. If a notable Liberal went on the record saying he or she knew for a fact that the two events were related, that would be another story, but anonymous people saying they "could" be related events? I don't think so. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reginald Perrin" is to be complimented on his logic and accuracy and I jumped the gun correcting his final post (which I have undone after reading his comments on the discussion page). It should be noted, though, that Gilchrist actually made the announcement, to the Ajax Pickering riding association and on the "Elect Steve Gilchrist" Facebook page (since closed) of his withdrawal back in March, not April, and even the Hill Times article suggests it was "two weeks" prior to the article's publication (the article is incorrect, as he actually informed the riding association and put a notice on the "Elect Steve Gilchrist" Facebook page within a week of the March 17th by-elections. Accordingly, I've made this minor amendment to the otherwise accurate comments of Reginald Perrin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.11.211 (talk • contribs)

I just want to add that, because the Hill Times article is available to paid subscribers only it was difficult for many of us to determine for ourselves what the article said and we had to rely on what others said. It appears that the contents of the article were not represented accurately by one or more people which is unfortunate. I hope this was an honest mistake in which case I just want to tell that person that when reading an article you have to be able to distinguish between fact and speculation - the linking of Gilchrist's resignation with his father's resignation was clearly reported as pure speculation and, worse than that, it was unsourced speculation. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)