A conservative should not vote PC Nova Scotia

A few weeks ago I wrote a post claiming that the PC Party of Nova Scotia deserved to lose the provincial election. This sparked a bit of a debate which ended with me saying that I will wait to make final judgement. With the election on June 9th, I thought that now was a good time to take a look at the party platforms.

There were some good points in the PC Party’s platform. They propose to cut business taxes in half and to hire more police to deal with gang activity. They also propose to freeze MLA’s wages, a mostly symbolic gesture but a nice one.

That is about all the good I can say for the PC Party. It does not on balance counterweight all the crap that they are shovelling.

They wish to increase funding for programs that encourage people to buy local food, and they want to launch a $350 000 media campaign to promote local agriculture. I don’t want to go on a long rant about agricultural protectionism and how it hurts the poorest in society. Let us just say that this is hardly a free market sort of solution that I would hope for.

There are other corporate welfare strategies being promoted by the Progressive Conservatives. They want to give more money to tourism, fund art projects, and give rebates to businesses that hire apprentices. None of these are horrific. I could usually forgive a party for these sorts of things if they had policy that was so good that I could ignore it, sadly they do not.

Instead they have a policy that makes my blood run cool; a curfew for everyone who is under the age of 16. If you ever doubted that the PC Party was an anti-freedom big government intrusive party; then simply consider the prospect of citizens being arrested for walking the street.

Rodney MacDonald deserves to lose.

Canada defined as being a small government

The Cato Institute reported that Canada actually has a more 'conservative' size of government than the United States. Andrew Coyne and Paul wells discuss this in the video below.



The most interesting part of this is the image of Canada. Mr. Coyne correctly pointed out that most of Canada's large government programs are carbon copies of American programs. Roosevelt's New Deal, afterall, predated Bennett's New Deal. Canada actually has a long history of fiscal restraint compared to the United States. For example the income tax was introduced in the United States a generation before it was brought to Canada.

It is time that we as a country stop defining ourselves as a nation of welfare programs. We are so much more than that.

PC Leadership Race: London Debate

I was fortunate enough to be able to make the London PC Party leadership debate. It was a pretty cordial event. None of the candidates went after each other viciously on their opponent’s style or substance. Instead they actually took care to complement each other and contrast themselves in a thoughtful manner. I was actually impressed and wished that all politicians would debate in such a manner. (Admittedly the format did not lend itself well to confrontation)

I enjoyed the experience, though I noticed that the room tended to be full of various candidates’ supporters and very few ordinary undecided members. So I thought for the sake of those that could not go I would create a summary of what was said. I have my bias, but I did attempt to be as objective in creating this summary as I could. (Didn’t always succeed I admit)

Style (done in the order that they were standing)

Frank Klees: I am not a big fan of Klees and I am presently debating if I should put him last or second last on my ballot. But I have to admit that I was impressed by his speaking ability. He was passionate at all the right moments and was amusing when it was appropriate. He has the rare gift of knowing what to do with his hands while he speaks; so that it emphasises his points rather than distracts. On pure style I would say he won the debate.

Randy Hillier: He was the most passionate and predictably the best at getting the room worked up. He received several cheers from the crowd, and shockingly none of them seemed staged. People were excited by his pro-freedom rhetoric in a manner that I found most gratifying. That being said he tended to trail off a little when not talking about his personal hot buttons. He was pretty inconsistent about his delivery and once nearly degenerated into mumbling. I loved his passion but he has to learn to fake the more boring stuff.

Christine Elliott: She was very poised and soft spoken. Slightly stiff and she failed to pause for applause several times, but otherwise an adequate performance.

Tim Hudak: He spoke with confidence and managed some of Mr. Klees’ tricks to public speaking. Yet his rhetoric was the most annoying and frustrating of all the candidates. He barely allowed a point to be made without making reference to either seniors or the middle class. It became tedious to the point of amusement, and distracted horribly from his performance.

(Sadly I did not make it on time to hear the first two questions)

Question 3 (in order of response): What is your plan to fight the recession?

Tim Hudak: He said that you have to protect middle class families by giving them tax breaks for having babies. He also said that a tax holiday would stop the recession. One good moment was when he attacked corporate welfare as a fundamental flaw to Premier McGuinty’s economic strategy.

Frank Klees: He spoke articulately about the importance of getting government of the backs of business. Said that ‘red tape’ should be cut to improve the economy, but didn’t hint at which regulations he would remove. He also spoke about tax incentives for businesses and a tax amnesty for people who received severance pay.

Randy Hillier: He said, “Government doesn’t create jobs, it chews them up and spits them out.” He spoke very passionately about how regulation kills jobs. He summed up his position with, “tax cuts everywhere and stop the growth of government.”

Christine Elliott: Flat tax. She described beautifully how effective it could be to increase productivity and help Ontario’s economy. Interestingly she referred to it as a stimulus plan. That is one stimulus plan that I like.

Question 4: Would you fund independent schools

Randy Hillier: He said that he would not propose a plan similar to the faith based school funding that was proposed in the 2007 election. He did say that he liked the tax credit idea that was brought in near the end of the PC Party’s last government. He even referred it to as the “tax voucher system.”

Christine Elliott: She said that she wants to have a conversation with the membership if this was an issue that the party should pursue. However, she did say that there were other issues that she felt were more critical in the educational portfolio, such as literacy.

Tim Hudak: Education is a middle class concern. He wants to help the middle class by making middle class children write middle class exit exams. Then he said something else about the middle class.

Frank Klees: No

Question 5: What is your position on Caledonia?

(There was a hushed silence then a nervous laughter after this question)

Randy Hillier: “I believe in this province we should only have one set of laws.” and “Equal application of the law is the only way we can have a free and safe society.” He also said that we don’t need new laws. We just need the political will to enforce the old laws. (He is the only one I quoted because he was just so quote worthy. It was due to his passionate rhetoric and not my bias I swear.)

Christine Elliott: Agrees with everything Randy Hillier said. She talked articulately about the importance of the rule of law. I felt like she really understood why it was important in practice and not just in abstract.

Tim Hudak: Rule of law is a middle class value. (I am not kidding he said that)

Frank Klees: Said he agrees with everything that Randy said. (He literally said that) Brought up an idea he has for a Charter of Property Rights. This would supposedly prevent something like Caledonia from happening again.

Question 6: What would you do to protect Ontario’s environmental and historical heritage?

Tim Hudak: He talked about a bunch of houses he saved when he was in government. He was all about protecting our heritage with government action. He did say that property rights should be protected when considering such issues. (didn’t bring up the middle class)

Frank Klees: He gloated about the Oak Ridge’s Moraine. He then said that property owners should be compensated when the government takes their land.

Randy Hillier: He talked about how enforcing property rights would help protect such heritage. That is if people really wanted to protect it they would buy it and protect it themselves. It was the free market solution to environmentalism. Do not take away the right to enjoy your property and people will work to preserve it.

Christine Elliott: She talked about how the government should give out money to promote the arts. Then she said that people should be compensated when the state steals from them.

Queston 7: with a blank slate how would you build a health system?

Everyone: publically paid for privately delivered. (They all said the same thing)

Tim Hudak: the middle class cares about health.

Question 8: What is the area of most of greatest need for reform?

Christine Elliott: Flat tax.

Tim Hudak: Job one is to bring together the party. Job two is to fix the economy by freezing the minimum wage and temporarily removing one or two taxes. Job three is to help the middle class.

Frank Klees: Empower MPPs to have more say in how government is ran.

Randy Hillier: Make democracy more accountable to the people and not to special interests.

(Note: not all the wording of the questions is exactly how they were asked. They are close enough however to make little practical difference)

Prince of Pot vs Vancouver city hall

The Western Standard is reporting that Marc Emery is being denied a license for his Vancouver businesses. This is despite the fact that his companies have been operating in Vancouver for more than a decade. The reason given is his 'trafficking' conviction (ie passing a joint).

From the Province

“We’re not doing anything: we don’t sell seeds, we don’t break the law, we don’t sell marijuana.”

Emery noted that his political advocacy of cultivation, consumption, production and legalization of marijuana was noted twice Tuesday during his rebuttal.

“This is totally related to the Olympics,” he said. “They’re just nervous to show the culture of what Vancouver is really like to the world.

“This is a total political battle. It has nothing to do with passing a joint five years ago, that’s just an excuse.”

Elliott would not reform or scrap the Human Rights Commission

I am disappointed to hear that Ms. Elliott has decided to back away from the OHRC (Ontario Human Rights Commission) issue. This is especially disappointing because it seems that she is not supportive of the OHRC, instead she is talking as if she doesn't think that it is a battle worth fighting.

"It would be a gift to the Liberals, one they would exploit as ruthlessly as they did with faith-based funding," she said, referring to former leader John Tory's disastrous 2007 election plan to fund religious schools.

"Just like faith-based funding, this is a policy that was made with the short-term goal of winning a leadership campaign," Elliott said. "Why on earth would we want to expose ourselves by plunging recklessly into such a controversial issue?"

Tim Hudak may be disqualified

A rumour has surfaced that the Leadership committee is meeting tonight to discuss if Tim Hudak, a declared candidate for the leadership of the PC Party, should be disqualified.

The deadline to hand in hard copies of their membership forms to back up their electronic forms was yesterday at 6pm. They handed them in at 7:30. Every other campaign handed in theirs on time.

It is a little unclear at this point if this would mean that Tim Hudak is disqualified or if just the memberships that he signed up would be disqualified.

A source in the Christine Elliott campaign has said that they encourage the committee to allow any member that signed up in good faith. The incompetence of the Hudak team should not disenfranchise those that want to join the process.

PC Leadership belongs to the members

Memberships are in and who sold how many is leaking like a broken dam. These are the numbers according to the Globe & Mail.

Frank Klees: 9 800
Christine Elliott: 8 000
Tim Hudak: 7 000
Randy Hillier: ?

The Hudak Team must be disappointed by these numbers. They were counting on being the only ones that could organize in time, and clearly they have stiffer competition than people initially supposed.

Mr. Hudak has the support of a huge portion of the party elite. Members of caucus, federal cabinet ministers, and riding presidents all support Mr. Hudak in greater number than his opponents. This is important support, but I think that its importance has been exaggerated.

The vote belongs to the membership. The value of the 'one member one vote system' is that it is a process that cannot be unduly controlled by party elites. Having the party establishment on your side is significant, but it is nothing if you can't sell memberships or get out the vote. Mr. Hudak has to reach pass the layer of riding president and MPPs to the individuel members.

I would still rank Hudak as the front runner. He started out with a strong lead and the other candidates had to hustle to catch up. Yet I am heartened by the thought that the position of Leader of the Opposition is something that will be earned.

The PC Party of Ontario responds properly to the Tamil protestors

I recieved this in an e-mail four days ago. I feel almost sorry it took me this long to actually read it.

The following statement was made in the Ontario Legislature yesterday by Bob Runciman, MPP, Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The statement was made in response to a statement by Premier Dalton McGuinty concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Caucus to express our appreciation and understanding of the concerns that so many Canadians of Tamil origin have with respect to the situation in Sri Lanka today and the continuing loss of life. We share those concerns. It is unconscionable that innocents are being caught in the crossfire between factions and lives are being lost.

The number of Ontarians assembled on the lawn at Queen’s Park yesterday was a testament to the depth of concern within the Canadian Tamil community. It was also a testament to the freedoms afforded in this great country – freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly.

These are freedoms that, regrettably, are not afforded in many countries throughout the world. And I suspect many of the people on the lawn came to Canada because of those rights. They are freedoms that should be respected and valued – not abused.

Unfortunately, over the past week they were abused, and laws were broken. The most egregious of those, the blockade of the Gardiner Expressway, a major artery and economic lifeline through the City of Toronto.

The Progressive Conservative caucus, unlike the McGuinty Liberal government, is strongly supportive of equal application of the rule of law. The law cannot treat one Ontarian differently than another based on the group to which they belong.

Regrettably, we’ve seen this democratic and historic principle eroded in Caledonia under the “look-the-other-way” approach of the McGuinty government. And, undoubtedly, the government’s indifference to lawlessness and their continuing efforts to appease lawbreakers in that region encouraged the actions that occurred this past Sunday.

The blockade of the Gardiner was without doubt, counter-productive. Ontarians are a generous and understanding people, and undoubtedly concerned over the loss of innocent life be it in Darfur, the Congo, or Sri Lanka.

But they are not supportive of in-your-face abuse of our laws and the public promotion of an internationally-recognised terrorist organization. With rights come responsibilities and one of the most important of these responsibilities is to obey the laws of the country you live in.

The Progressive Conservative Member for Newmarket-Aurora, Frank Klees, has met with Tamil community representatives and written the Prime Minister relaying concerns we share with many in the Tamil community. We will support your lawful efforts to have those concerns heard and heeded.

In closing, I want to reference an article in today’s Toronto Star that indicates the Liberal caucus is now getting engaged in this issue because they could lose seats in the next provincial election.

The Star story quotes an unnamed Liberal MPP saying, “If we’re not careful, there are at least five ridings we could lose if the Tamils go over to the NDP.”

Speaker, if that’s the real motivation behind the fine words and the resolution, we would be disappointed but not surprised. The Liberal party consistently portrays itself as the defender of the downtrodden but, as we discovered in the “Nanny-Gate affair,” protecting Liberal interests always takes priority.

Speaker, I can assure you that the Progressive Conservative Caucus is always prepared to speak out on wrongdoing and suffering wherever it occurs. And we will always do it for the right reasons – our concern for our fellow men and women.

Governor of South Carolina loves liberty

PC Leadership Race: Last day to sign up

Today is the last day to buy a membership and be able to vote in the PC Leadership race. I'm pretty excited about this race, which is one based on real policy proposals not sound and fury.

Make sure you sign up by 10pm today.

You can do so online here

The fall of the STV

Good news from yesterday's BC election. The proposed single transferable vote electoral system has once again failed.

I first learned about this system in first year political science class. The professor was very excited telling us about all the complex in and outs of this system. I swear it was the first and only time I saw a mathematical formula put on the board during a purely political science lecture. It soon became clear that even the professor didn't completely understand how the system would work.

For representative democracy to work it must have legitimacy in the minds of the electorate. A system so complicated that it confuses people who have studied politics their whole life is bound to lose that legitimacy.

Tory Attack Ad

I have nothing against attack ads. They can be both truthful and effective. They are part of any argument for why you should vote for someone. A campaign should always say two things, my opponents are bad, and I am good.

The problem I have with these latest ads is the execution not the tactic. These ads are bad. But don't take my word for it. This is what the real Canadian master of the attack has to say about it.

Randy Hillier to increase 400 series speed limit

I have spent the last seven years of my life (the length of time that I have had a license) ranting and raving at the absurdity of having a 400 series highway speed limit at 100km/h. In fact it is often unsafe to drive as slow as the legal speed limit. I have a friend that was almost charged with unsafe driving for going 100km/h on the 416 for that reason.

Randy Hillier, candidate for PC leader, has announced that he would increase the speed limit to 110km/h. Thus making legal the speed that everyone drives at anyway. (admittedly I drive faster) Randy Hillier has once again shown that he is in abundance with a rare commodity, common sense.

Mr. Hillier also promised to remove the silly speed limiters on trucks.

Mr. Hillier is making highways safer in a very rational manner.

(From the Randy Hillier Website)

• Ontario’s 400 series of highways was built to have vehicles travel at speeds higher than 100 KM/H.
• Cars can safely handle faster speeds and people are already driving at that speed right now.
• The current law simply criminalizes common practice.
• The CAA says “Only 1 per cent of highway drivers obey the current highway speed limit”
• Transportation experts agree that its not the speed but speed variation that causes accidents: “It’s not speeding that kills, it’s speed variation,” Professor Baher Abdulhai, PhD
• US states where the speed limit was increased in 1995 found traffic deaths decreased

(For the record this was the first blog post I ever wrote for my own blog)

Tim Hudak would get rid of the Human Rights Tribunal

Tim Hudak, a candidate for PC Leader, has announced that he would scrap the conterversial court known as the Human Rights Commission.

For too long, individual rights have been trampled and ignored by an increasingly dysfunctional Human Rights bureaucracy. The McGuinty government’s system has advanced nuisance claims and denied justice and legitimate complaints, costing individuals and businesses thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs and clogging the system.

“Under Dalton McGuinty’s leadership, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal have lost sight of their real job – to protect individuals in real cases of discrimination and harassment,” said Tim.

Tim proposes that the Tribunal be scrapped in favour of a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence. Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts. These judges would have a mandate to hear real cases of discrimination or harassment – not politically-motivated cases of hurt feelings.

Randy Hillier versus Frank Klees on abortion

I recently received a mass e-mail from the President of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. The e-mail linked to this blog post and the post raised an interesting question. Should someone who is pro-life vote for Randy Hillier or Frank Klees.

This is a portion of the post:

In fact, the only real difference between the two that I can detect seems to be that Klees’ beliefs are more pure than Hillier’s.

Here’s the problem though - unless concrete action is taken to protect the right of those who hold such pure beliefs to openly express them, and to act in accordance with them, anti-abortion activism may itself become a crime. At a minimum, doctors who refuse to perform or facilitate abortions could face disciplinary action, even losing their license to practice medicine.

What is Frank Klees’ plan to deal with these looming threats? If he has one, I don’t know it; nor, I suspect, do my friends and colleagues at CLC. Oh sure, when it comes to answering the CLC questionnaire – a questionnaire that tests beliefs instead of performance – Klees scores an A plus. But that A plus is the grade of a colour-commentator in a hockey broadcast who understands the game well enough, but who never actually played in the big leagues because he either can’t, or won’t, take a hit.

Hillier, on the other hand, not only has a plan to defend free speech and private conscience, he has a record of action too. In fact, the whole reason he entered politics in the first place was to fight for those rights.

I don't know what Randy Hillier's personal views on abortion are, but I do know that Frank Klees has proclaimed himself as 'pro-life.' This has won him the support of pro-life groups such as the Campaign Life Coalition.

Yet as the above link points out, Randy Hillier has more concrete proposals that pro life people should support. Mr. Hillier's proposed Freedom of Association and Conscience Act would, among other things, allow a doctor to refuse to commit what he may think of as a sin. This is a substantive proposal that ought to win support from both social conservatives and libertarians.

The question I suppose comes down to; elect someone who is openly supportive of their final goal though with no clear or realistic plan to achieve that goal, or someone who would move policy in a direction that they approve of.

I sympathize, libertarians face this question a lot.

(Note: on the website I couldn't find any endorsement of Frank Klees from Campaign Life Coalition. I got that information from the linked blog. I found this, which says both Klees and Hudak are 'supportable.' If anyone knows anything please clarify.)

*Update*

I recieved confirmation of the endorsement here.

Should a conservative vote for the Nova Scotia PC?

I wrote a blog post proclaiming that the Nova Scotia PC Party do not deserve to win this election. On the Western Standard, Dane Richard responded to my post with his own post on why the PC Party should win.

I think I can fairly summarize our positions like this:

Hugh: They shouldn't win because they haven't acted like conservatives in government.
Dane: They should win because they are acting like conservatives in the election and the opposition is worse.

Not living in Nova Scotia I haven't heard much about the NDP opposition. Looking a little into it I find out that they are pretty much what I expected them to be. They seem pretty typical of the NDP across the country. Government as the solution to all problems.

The issue though is not really the NDP, it is the PC Party. Politicians like everyone else react to incentives. If a nominal conservative can get elected by not acting like a conservative, then they have no incentive to act like a conservative. Basically if we ever want a party that behaves like we want, then we have to stop voting for parties that behave differently. It thus makes long term sense to not vote PC and hope that they get the point and elect a new more conservative leader.

The flip side to that is if they are acting conservative in an election you should vote for them to encourage them to act more conservative. This creates a dilemma for what a conservative should do with the PC Party of Nova Scotia.

Should they be punished for the way they governed or rewarded for the things that they are promising?

I don't know yet, but I will be watching to see.

*Update*

The blog Wolfville Watch commented on this debate.

WSJ and the economic crisis: Regulation doesn't save anything

The Wall Street Journal takes to task one of the myths of the economic crisis.

Regulation Didn't Save Canada's Banks

Our neighbors to the north keep government out of lending decisions.

Canada's five largest banks would pass the U.S. government stress test brilliantly. They were profitable in the last quarter of 2008, are well capitalized now, and have had no problems raising additional private capital. On average only 7% of their mortgage portfolios consisted of subprime loans (versus 20% in the U.S.). And no major Canadian bank has required direct government infusions of capital.

Advocates of increased regulation of U.S. financial markets have concluded that more stringent rules governing leverage and capital ratios account for Canada's impressive performance. They champion such measures here. In a Toronto speech earlier this year about reforming the U.S. banking system, former Fed chairman and Obama administration adviser Paul Volcker said the model he is considering "looks more like the Canadian system than it does the American system."

Nevertheless, Canadian banks operate in a very different context. Copying the Canadian banking system in this country, without understanding how its banking and housing sectors operate, would be a mistake.

Start with the housing sector. Canadian banks are not compelled by laws such as our Community Reinvestment Act to lend to less creditworthy borrowers. Nor does Canada have agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promoting "affordable housing" through guarantees or purchases of high-risk and securitized loans. With fewer incentives to sell off their mortgage loans, Canadian banks held a larger share of them on their balance sheets. Bank-held mortgages tend to perform more soundly than securitized ones.

(Read More)

PC Leadership Race: Summary of policy proposals from all candidates

With only one week left before the membership cut off, I figured now would be the best time to summarize the policy proposals from the four leadership candidates. I am getting pretty excited about this policy debate, and can’t wait to see them debate in person.

(The order is alphabetical)

Christine Elliott
• A flat tax
• Increase maximum work week from 48 hours to 60 hours
• Freeze the minimum wage
• Double tax credit for charitable donations
• Review bail system and prevent repeat offenders
• Give more resources to combating illicit tobacco smuggling
• Policies to combat gang violence
• Opt out of federal EI program
• Build a law school in the north
• Ensure access to affordable broadband in the north
• Improve access to legal counsel in the north

Randy Hillier
• Re-opening the spring bear hunt
• Repeal the pit bull ban
• Opening competition for the Beer Store
• Abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission
• Reverse pesticide ban
• Allow freedom of conscience for professionals
• Change the apprentice to journeyman ratio from 1:3 to 1:1
• Allow competition for the WSIB
• Require a supervised democratic vote of all employees before a company is unionized.
• Senate elections in Ontario
• Allow municipalities to determine property assessment
• Hold referendum to de-amalgamate cities

Tim Hudak
• An immediate one-year payroll tax holiday on new hires
• Suspending the Land Transfer Tax for one-year on all new and resale home purchases
• Cancelling the Harmonized Sales Tax
• 2 000 dollar rebate for people that turn in 10 year old cars and buy new cars
• Wage freeze for non-unionized government employees
• Increasing the small business tax threshold
• Scrapping corporate welfare programs
• Freeze minimum wage
• Appoint a minister in charge of cutting ‘red tape’
• Allow new companies to defer taxes for one year
• Seizure of property of those suspected of committing a crime

Frank Klees
• Supports Senate elections
• Opposed to liberalizing liquor laws
• Opposed to the HST

Only Randy Hillier had all his policy on one easy to find page. The rest was found from old press releases and blog posts. If I missed anything say so in the comments and link where you heard it from.

The Elliott Flat Tax

Christine Elliott announced today the ‘Elliott Flat Tax.’ The plan is basically to increase the personal amount to 18 000 then collapse the three tax brackets into a single bracket. This would massively simplify the tax system and ensure that the poorest income earners are not burdened by taxes. This is in contrast to another candidate that seeks to complicate the tax code with rebates. Any fiscal conservative worth their salt knows that a simple tax system is ‘simply better.’

Christine Elliott has touched on the perfect way for Ontario to reclaim its spot as the economic engine of Canada: “The most important feature of a flat tax is the positive impact on productivity, employment, income, living standard, and the economy in general,” said Elliott. “This has been achieved wherever flat taxes have been introduced.”

You can’t even call this a crazy right wing policy. It has been done in both New Brunswick, Alberta, and several states in the US. It is a policy promoted by the respected and often moderate Fraser Institute. This is a great policy and I sincerely hope that whoever wins will adopt it as a key election promise.

Rodney MacDonald deserves to lose this election

Today the Nova Scotia Legislature has been dissolved for yet another election. The PC minority government deserved to be brought down and they deserve to be defeated.

The PC government was defeated on their budget. In it they proposed to renege on the law requiring a certain amount of debt repayment a year. They would use this money instead to balance the budget. In my mind a single year of deficit does not outweigh the importance of debt repayment. If the government was allowed to avoid the repayment one year it would become increasingly easy for them to do it in later years.

It is particularly annoying when you consider that the PCs have increased spending while in office. Surely there are some cuts that they could have made to ensure a balanced budget. Shifting money around is just a way to avoid responsibility.

And now the people of Nova Scotia have an opportunity to hold them responsible.

Campus Conservatives endorse Tim Hudak

The campus wing of the Progressive Conservative Party announced today that they were endorsing the front runner Tim Hudak.

“I am pleased to announce that OPCCA is endorsing Tim Hudak to be the next leader of our party. Tim Hudak, more than any other candidate, has reached out to the youth of the party in support of our organization and its initiatives.” said Eric Merkley, OPCCA President.

It is a little uncertain how meaningful this endorsement is. In the days of delegated conventions both OPCCA and OPCYA could have wielded disproportionate influence with the use of their allotted delegates. With the present one member one vote system all that these organizations can offer is enthusiastic volunteers.

Though the value of enthusiastic volunteers should never be doubted.

I remind me of Wilfrid Laurier

It seems that you can say that you are just like your personal hero and no one will call you an arrogant prick, no matter how absurd the comparison is.

I somehow missed the Iggymania that is suppose to be sweeping the nation.

New Hudak economic policies

Following a series of lackluster policy proposals (as outlined here, here and here), Tim Hudak finally has some policy that fiscal conservatives and libertarians can get behind. Today Hudak has announced a series of economic policies that would reduce the size of our provincial government.

Increase the small business tax threshold from $500,000 to $600,000. Leaving more money in the hands of entrepreneurs will result in small business owners investing back into their companies and creating more jobs. Of course, raising the threshold will benefit all companies, large and small;

Scrapping the McGuinty government’s corporate welfare programs that pick winners and losers. Instead the funds would be targeted at broad based tax relief for all businesses in Ontario;

Freeze the minimum wage until we become more competitive with the other provinces. Today, only Nunavut has a higher minimum wage than Ontario;

Follow the “BC model” to reduce red tape, including having a Minister responsible for establishing hard targets, providing political support and given real power to reduce the unnecessary regulations that drive up the time and cost that businesses put into compliance; and,

Give small business start-ups the option to defer taxes so that they don’t have to file until the end of their second year.

I would like more specifics on the corporate welfare platform. Are the "McGuinty government’s corporate welfare programs" just limited to corporate welfare that McGuinty brought in, or all corporate welfare from the province? Either way it is a step in the right direction, but if it is scrapping all corporate welfare, this policy is quite impressive.

I was ready to completely write off Tim Hudak. Now I'm not so sure. Hopefully there are more smaller government policies to come.