Defend capitalism

Gerry Nicholls wrote an excellent article encouraging entrepreneurs to defend the free market.

Entrepreneurs must stop apologizing -- Report Magazine

In Ayn Rand’s famous philosophic novel, Atlas Shrugged, leading entrepreneurs and businessmen go “on strike” as a way of protesting socialism.

Eventually this strike causes the economy to collapse which in turns causes politicians to finally understand the true value of those who actually create wealth and prosperity.

It’s a good story, but alas it’s only fiction.

In real life, the majority of politicians, and for that matter most of the general public, have virtually no understanding as to how capitalists and entrepreneurs, when allowed to operate in a free market, benefit society.

In fact, if anything an anti-entrepreneur bias permeates our culture. Or least it permeates our popular culture. Just consider, for instance, how in movies and TV shows, successful business people are inevitably portrayed as “greedy” or “corrupt” or “heartless.”

Indeed, these days the prejudice against the free market and those who make it work, has reached a near hysteric level, as pundits, politicians and others seek to pin blame for the current economic slowdown on what they like to call “corporate greed”.

What these critics don’t understand, of course, is that the same free market system they like to rail against is also the same system which has made our society the most prosperous in history.

And besides being the most efficient way to create wealth, the free market system also happens to be morally superior to it main economic alternative -- socialism.

Free markets are based on choice; socialism on compulsion.

Read More

Ignatieff tries to win the west by demonizing Calgary

Michael Ignatieff has long been a proponent of the Liberal Party reaching out to western Canada. I remember in the first leadership race that he ran in, he would often say that the party should do more to bring westerners into the Liberal fold. In a recent Globe & Mail article Michael Ignatieff had this to say:

“The big issue for me is I don't want to be a party of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, which is what this party is,” Mr. Ignatieff said in an interview. “Because you can't be a good prime minister unless you represent all Canadians.”

This is true. The great weakness of the Liberal Party is that they have become the urban party. They even elected an urban intellectual elite as their leader (I hope to become an urban intellectual elite one day), though Mr. Igantieff had a response to this:

“Frankly,” he said, “I think it's condescending to westerners that being a so-called intellectual is some big liability. People out here are as devoted to the life of the mind, and the life of culture, as anybody else in the country. So I don't think that's going to fly. It's just stupid.”

This at the very least shows that he doesn't think of all westerners as dumb rednecks. He sees that there is an intellectual life beyond Toronto and Montreal.

He is even willing to put down the anti-oil sands 'stick':

“I think sometimes we tried to establish our environmental bona fides by running against the oil sands,” he said. “And I just think: This is a national industry. It's pumping something like $8-billion into the federal treasury. So it's slightly bad faith to beat the goose that lays the golden egg over the head with a stick."

Then he said this:

“The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

I don't really understand the political strategy of trying to win over a region by bashing one of its major centres. Of course Calgary is not the be all and end all of all there is in western Canada, but as an outsider to the region is it really such a good idea to take such pot shots? He is demonizing Harper because he comes from a western city, is that really the way to gain new western support? It makes the rest of his fine words ring rather hollow.

Put this together with the recent Liberal activity to prevent a vote to abolish the gun registry. I think Mr. Ignatieff needs to realize that if the Liberal Party is going to have any success west of the Great Lakes he needs more than fine words. He needs to change his and his party's attitudes.

The Ontario PC Party goes 'right' but that isn't enough

The Toronto Star and other Liberals have delighted in the last couple months in accusing the PC Ontario Party of 'moving to the right.' Perhaps this is an accurate description, though it doesn't have the negative connotation that the Star seems to think that it does. Christine Elliott was hailed as the moderate candidate and she was promoting massive tax cuts in the form of a flat tax. That is to say, the moderate candidate was 'right' of Stephen Harper.

Tim Hudak has definitely claimed the mantle of 'blue Tory.' He has invoked Mike Harris time and time again. Which is a remarkable change from the previous leader (who once introduced Bill Davis as the greatest living Premier). Indeed if the results of this election tells us anything it is that the grassroots desire a more conservative party.

I despise labels such as 'right' and 'left.' They are the tools of dim witted journalists and intellectually lazy academics. I try to avoid using such terms as much as I can, though I admit I am sometimes trapped into the habit and ease of simplifying political discourse into a two dimensional spectrum.

So it is not enough for me to say you are 'right wing' or to invoke Mike Harris or Ronald Reagan as your personal heroes. We don't need a 'right winger' we need someone who is dedicated to shrinking government, cutting taxes, and desisting the constant state interference in our personal choices. If you want to call that 'right wing' then so be it, but you can't just say it you have to do it.

That is my message to Tim Hudak, the new leader of PC Party of Ontario.

Anyone who has been reading my posts know that I wasn't a fan of his candidacy. I found his rhetoric to be disheartening and many of his policies were adaptations of Harperian big government ideas. But now I think that I will reserve judgement. I want to see how he acts as Leader of the Opposition and which of his policies make it pass the cutting board.

My vote has to be earned, but I do hope that Mr. Hudak earns it.

Ontario PC Leadership Race: 3rd round and final results

Here it is the final results

Hudak: 5606 (55%)
Klees: 4643 (45%)

Congratulation to all those that worked on Tim Hudak's campaign. I'm going to reflect upon this for a while and come back with an analyses.

Ontario PC Leadership Race: John Laforet comments on Liberal tactics at the convention

John Laforet is a Liberal Party activist that I met when I attended the University of Toronto. I found him to be a well meaning liberal without an overly partisan attitude. He demonstrates this in a video posted by United and Strong:



Here is the press release that he refers to.

*update*

I have been told that he is no longer a member of the Liberal Party, but he was active in the Liberal Party a couple of years ago when I knew him.

Ontario PC Leadership Race: Randy Hillier on the first round

Stephen Taylor has posted this video of Randy Hillier:

Ontario PC Leadership: second round shows Tim Hudak as likely winner

Hudak 4128 (40%)
Klees 3299 (32%)
Elliott 2903 (28%)

Christine Elliott is now out of the running. It is a little unclear who most of her supporters will pick as a second choice, but it is unlikely that Frank Klees will recieve enough to put him over the top. Frank Klees would require 1866 of the redistibuted electoral votes to defeat Tim Hudak. That represents around 64% of Christine Elliott's electoral votes. The high of a persentage didn't even go from Hillier to Hudak.

There is now no question in my mind. Tim Hudak is going to be the next leader of the PC Party of Ontario

Ontario PC Leadership Race: round 2 results

Final results:

Hudak 4128 (40%)
Klees 3299 (32%)
Elliott 2903 (28%)

Here are some more preliminary numbers:

Hudak 4000 (40%)
Klees 3233 (32%)

Elliott 2800 (28%)

With 60 of 107 ridings reporting:

Hudak 2306 (41%)
Klees 1808 (32%)
Elliott 1503 (27%)

Randy Hillier endorses Tim Hudak

Stephen Taylor is reporting on the website United & Strong that Randy Hillier is endorsing Tim Hudak. I wonder if Hillier decided to do that before he saw the first round results or afterwards.

Hudak: 3511 (34%)

Klees: 3093 (30%)

Elliott: 2728 (26%)

Hillier 1013 (10%)

Here is a press release from the Ontario Liberals also reporting this endorsement.

PC Leadership Race: Tim Hudak likely to win on the 3rd round

Tim Hudak reacting to the first round (from Stephen Taylor):



First ballot results:

Hudak: 3511 (34%)
Klees: 3093 (30%)
Elliott: 2728 (26%)
Hillier 1013 (10%)

Randy Hillier is now out of the running for leadership. He got into this race to push forward an agenda of ideas, and on that score I think he succeeded. It is unlikely that issues such as the Human Rights Tribunal would have been addressed if it wasn't for Randy Hillier.

An important thing to note about Randy Hillier supporters is that a significant portion of them voted for Randy Hillier and for no one else. Of all the candidate's supporters they are the least likely to completely fill out their preferential ballot. I predict that the second round vote total for each candidate will look very much like the first round. This is very bad news for Christine Elliott, I do not expect her to survive the next round.

Christine Elliott voters will then most likely be split evenly between Mr. Hudak and Mr. Klees. I do not think that either remaining candidate has particularly strong support among Christine Elliott voters. As things stand now, I predict that this will be Mr. Hudak's night.

Ontario PC Leadership - First Ballot Results

After the first ballot in the Ontario PC Leadership, here are the results (Note: these are electoral votes, not individual votes):

Tim Hudak - 3511 - 34%
Frank Klees - 3093 - 30%
Christine Elliott - 2728 - 26%
Randy Hillier - 1013 - 10% (will not be advancing to the 2nd ballot)

Here is my quick analysis:

Tim Hudak is in a very strong position to win this. It will be impossible for Hudak to not advance to the 3rd ballot, even if he does not receive a single 2nd place vote from Hillier voters.

Christine Elliott needs to make up 365 electoral vote gap on Klees to advance to the 3rd ballot. This means she needs to get at least 36% more of the total Hillier vote than Klees. This seems unlikely to happen.

Tim Hudak will not be able to win on the 2nd ballot even if he takes 100% of Hillier's 2nd place vote, as that would put him at 44%.

This means there will be a 3rd ballot, which will have Hudak against either Klees or Elliott. It will likely be against Klees. If I were betting, I would put a lot of money on Hudak winning the leadership now.

PC Leadership Race: How I voted

With today as the last day of voting in the PC Ontario leadership race, I thought I would share with my readers how I voted and why I voted that way (I voted on Sunday). The ballot is a preferential ballot and so I was faced with the question of not only who I want to win, but who my second, third, and last choice would be.

1. Randy Hillier
2. Christine Elliott
3. Tim Hudak
4. Frank Klees

Randy Hillier:

First choice was the easiest choice I had to make on this ballot. Randy Hillier doesn’t just call himself a libertarian, he talks and acts like a libertarian. With a background in fighting for property rights and the best list of policies I’ve ever seen in Canada, I am proud to say that I voted for him. Many complain that he is rough around the edges, but he deserves my support for staying true to his ideals throughout this campaign. It should be noted that this supposed ‘rural anarchist’ has the best Toronto oriented policy seen in this race.

Christine Elliott:

At first glance you might think that this is an odd second choice for a radical such as myself. She has been touted throughout the election as the moderate candidate. I would rejoice if the flat tax was hailed as a moderate position, but the truth is far more complicated. Everything I know about Christine Elliott from before the leadership race says that she is a fiscal conservative, and nothing has happened to really dispute that. She is the lightest on policy but it is important to note that none of her policies are truly bad or objectionable. Indeed the centre pieces of her campaign is a grassroots policy process (which is often associated with the more ‘conservative wing’) and a flat tax. She has been called moderate for preaching ‘compassionate conservatism.’ At the same time when talking about her policy for increasing tax credits for charities, she said “This measure would strengthen the volunteer organizations and community groups who do the things that are very challenging for governments to accomplish. At the heart of our communities are men and women devoted to helping one another through a variety of charitable organizations,” If this isn’t music to a fiscal conservative’s ear, I don’t know what is.

Tim Hudak:

Those of you who are familiar with my postings may have detected a certain amount of hostility towards Tim Hudak. This would be a fair observation but I think this hostility was deserved. I have long been a fan of Mr. Hudak’s and I have become bitterly disappointed. It is not just my annoyance at his rhetoric; I find many of his policies to be offensive. The idea that I could have my possessions taken away for a mere suspicion of a crime is abhorrent to me. Anyone, no matter how virtuous or base, can be suspected of a crime. His defenders have basically said that such a policy will only be used against the ‘bad guys.’ I am uncomfortable with the state defining someone as a ‘bad guy’ with no due process.

Another objection I have is his long list of tax credits that amount to demand side corporate welfare. He has preached against corporate welfare so much that you can almost call him a hypocrite. He believes that consumers should pick winners but that the state can encourage them to pick the ones that the state wants. Perhaps hypocrite is too strong, better to say that he is inconsistent in his faith in the free market.

So why third place and not fourth? Partly it is because of who the remaining candidate is, but I will get to that in a moment. Tim Hudak does have several saving graces. His attack on the Human Rights Tribunal has been criticized as a ploy to win Hillier supporters, but I believe it to be sincere. His good policies may not outweigh his bad, but he does have policies that I hope will not disappear from the marketplace of ideas.

Frank Klees:

I think that the best way to describe Frank Klees is as a big government conservative. He may talk about the value of the free market and individual choice, but he doesn’t really believe it. He has been the most consistent member of the PC caucus for the support of policies that regulate the day to day lives of individuals. I have heard him talk about the role of government in ways that make me shudder. If it is the smoking bans, youth driver laws, and other such policies that anger you about the McGuinty Liberals; Frank Klees should not get your vote in this leadership race.

I grant that not much of this has come out in this race. My opinion of Mr. Klees is not based on what I have seen in the last few months, it has been formed over the course of years of observation. But if you do want something more, consider his ‘Ministry of long term planning.’ What does it say about the leader’s faith in individuals when he expects the government to be able to plan for the long term? It says that he views government as society’s leader, not as the protector of law and order.

The Muslim QB

Random I know, but hey if you can't laugh you can't live life...

The coach had put together the perfect team for the Detroit

Lions.The only thing that was missing was a good

quarterback.

He had scouted all the colleges and even the Canadian and

European Leagues, but he couldn't find a ringer who

could ensure a Super Bowl win.

Then one night while watching CNN he saw a war-zone scene

in Afghanistan. In one corner of the background, he spotted

a young Afghan Muslim soldier with a truly incredible arm.

He threw a hand-grenade straight into a 15th story window

100 yards away.

KABOOM!

He threw another hand-grenade 75 yards away, right into a

chimney.

KA-BLOOEY!

Then he threw another at a passing car going 90 mph.

BULLS-EYE!

"I've got to get this guy!" Coach said to

himself. "He has the perfect arm!"

So, he brings him to the States and teaches him the great

game of football.. And the Lions go on to win the Super Bowl.

The young Afghan is hailed as the great hero of football,

and when the coach asks him what he wants, all the young man

wants is to call his mother.

"Mom," he says into the phone, "I just won

the Super Bowl!"

"I don't want to talk to you, the old Muslim woman

says. "You are not my son!"

"I don't think you understand, Mother," the

young man pleads.. "I've won the greatest sporting

event in the world. I'm here among thousands of my

adoring fans."

"No! Let me tell you!" his mother

retorts."At this very moment, there are gunshots all

around us. The neighborhood is a pile of rubble. Your two

brothers were beaten within an inch of their lives last

week, and I have to keep your sister in the house so she

doesn't get raped!"

The old lady pauses, and then tearfully says, "I will

never forgive you for making us move to Detroit!"

PC Leadership Race: the TVO debate

Here is the video of the TVO debate.

Some of the questions were silly in my opinion. The moderator had to know that everyone would dodge the question on if they would repeal the HST, so why did he ask it?

The highlight for me was when Tim Hudak called Frank Klees a Liberal-lite. Of all the candidates, there is the least amount of love between those two.

Another moment of note came when they were debating having the Human Rights Tribunal as an election issue. One of the live blogging commentors suggested that this wasn't an important question for Ontarians who are worried about their jobs. This added credence to Ms. Elliott's and Mr. Klees' position. Though Mr. Klees lost some of my respect when he identified the PC Party as the ones that brought in the Human Rights Tribunal. This may be true, but that hardly makes a different when deciding if it is worth the effort to try and abolish it or not.

You can see more debates on the PC Ontario website.

PC Leadership Race: Randy Hillier endorsed by Catholic Insights

According to the Free Dominion, the prolife magazine called Catholic Insight has endorsed Randy Hillier. This is a break from other pro life groups that have endorsed Frank Klees.

I have often thought that Randy Hillier is the rare candidate that both principled social conservatives and principled libertarians can support. He is the only candidate that is proposing policy that addresses the concerns of pro-lifers. His Freedom of Conscience Act would allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds.

PC Leadership Race: Hudak Campaign Co-Chair on the Push Poll

Yesterday I wrote a blog post regarding a push poll that was attacking Tim Hudak. In this post I questioned the wisdom of Mr. Hudak's campaign accusing the Frank Klees Campaign of commissioning the poll. It seems that I did not entirely understand the situation. Blair McCreadie, former President of the PCPO executive and co-chair of the Tim Hudak Campaign, was good enough to leave a comment that clarifies the circumstances around the complaint.

Hugh:

I had the opportunity to read your posting. We thought it would be important that Western Standard readers understand a few facts regarding these calls, which has also been posted on Stephen Taylor's blog.

First, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party during the hearing that it authorized the offending script, which we maintain is a push poll.

Second, the Klees Campaign also admitted to the Party that it retained Logit Group to do a blind poll, so that the true source of the calls would be concealed from Party members.

Third, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party that Logit Group made hundreds of these calls to Tim Hudak supporters across the province.

The Klees Campaign defended these calls as "research", although push polls appear to violate CRTC telemarketing guidelines and contravene legitimate market research standards.

Given that the Klees Campaign admitted to making these calls, we are obviously disappointed that the Party chose not to punish the Klees Campaign for conducting this negative push poll.

But we are pleased that, because of our investigation, Party members who complained about this inappropriate push poll can cast their vote knowing that the Klees Campaign was responsible for it.

We also thank the Party for issuing a new guideline requiring all calling firms to reveal which campaign retained them when calling the Party membership. This increased level of transparency is important to Party members. It will also prevent the Klees Campaign from conducting other divisive push polls for the rest of this leadership race.

Our campaign recognizes that unifying and rebuilding our great Party will be a key task for our new Leader. This principle has governed our campaign throughout this leadership race, and will continue to do so as we enter this important final week.

I appreciate the opportunity to share this additional information with readers so they can come to their own conclusions.

Blair McCreadie
Co-Chair, Tim Hudak Leadership Campaign

PC Leadership Race: The push poll accusation

Controversy in the PC leadership race around a mysterious push poll attacking Tim Hudak. Stephen Taylor of BloggingTories summarizes the situation here. (A push poll is when someone conducts a survey with negatively worded questions about a candidate. eg. When do think X stopped beating his wife?)

To summarize Mr. Taylor's summary; the Hudak Campaign accused the Klees Campaign of commissioning the push poll. They went to the rules committee of the PC Party and complained about this tactic, claiming that Mr. Klees violated the rules.

The PC Party responded that Mr. Hudak's claim was "without merit." It is still uncertain who it was that commissioned this attack, but it appears that Frank Klees has been cleared of any involvement.

At the end of Stephen Taylor's blog post that is linked above, you will notice a question:

Yet, if this complaint is without merit as the party stated, the Hudak campaign may have broken their own 11th commandment by unloading this scandal entirely on the Klees campaign so close to the leadership vote. Has the Hudak campaign done their homework or is the party right to dismiss their claims?

Considering the mildness of this push poll (no one accused Tim Hudak of having illegitimate children) it might have been wiser to ignore it. Especially when the Hudak Campaign has been pushing this 11th commandment idea of not attacking other PC leadership candidates. To accuse his opponent without clear evidence (there is highly suggestive but not conclusive evidence) does nothing but muddy the name of Frank Klees.

The questions (taken from Stephen Taylor's blog):

1. What is the main issue that you will vote on in this leadership race?
2. Who will be your first choice for party leader?
3. Who will be your second choice?
4. Tim Hudak said he was the frontrunner, promising an easy win in the shortest leadership race ever, but his campaign has faltered. Why do you think this happened?
5. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because he promised to sell the most memberships, but came in third place?
6. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign faltered because of his adoption of a divisive policy on Human Rights Commissions?
7. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because it is relying on the support of Mike Harris, who may be liked by party members but who will hurt our party in the general election?
8. Keeping in mind the Hudak campaign’s poor performance, are you now more or less likely to change your second ballot support?

Oppostion Parties try to prevent a vote on abolishing the gun registry

The Western Standard is reporting that the opposition leaders are trying to kill Bill C-391 (abolishing the gun registry) in committee. This is despite the fact that the bill is likely to receive enough support from each party to pass.

MP Scott Reid explains the situation in this Member's Statement:



The most galling part of this is that once the opposition party members realized that it was a public meeting they tried to put the meeting in 'camera' (off the public record). If the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc want to kill this bill, then why are they trying to do it in secret?

Here is a recording of the subcommittee meeting:

Part 1: The opposition parties try to use procedural rules to stop the bill.


Part 2: Opposition MPs try to take the meeting into record.


Part 3: MP Scott Reid filibusters

Christine Elliott and the Human Rights Commission

Yesterday Christine Elliott sent out an e-mail titled "Poll: Scrapping Human Rights Tribunal = Faith Based Funding." The suggestion was that the proposal to abolish the Human Rights Tribunal could lose the PC Party the next election. She backs up this assertion:

Asked if they'd consider the Ontario PC Party as an alternative to Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in the next election, 42.6% of respondents said yes, 38.8% no. Asked whether they'd consider voting the same way if the PC party's new leader wanted to scrap the tribunal, that support plunged to 25.2%.

I despise the kangaroo courts that lay claim to protecting 'human rights.' They do not protect rights but violate people's basic rights to due process, rights that go as far back as the Magna Carta.

The reality is, however, that most people haven't heard much about this issue. They hear the words 'human rights' then they hear the words 'abolish' and they rightly become suspicious. Most people don't know what happened to Ezra Levant or Mark Styne; sadly most people don't pay that close attention to politics.

In a way Ms. Elliott is right. If such a policy was proposed in the middle of the whirlwind of and election, it could easily be used to crush the PCs. The Liberals could use the people's ignorance to paint such policy as being heartless or malicious. As a not so great Prime Minister once said, "[An election] is not the time, I don't think, to get involved in very, very serious discussions."

This isn't to say that politicians of principle should ignore the issue. Far from it, the ignorance of the public means that the politicians should tackle it with greater energy. There is time before the next election to educate the people. To tell them why the HRC needs to be disbanded.

Sometimes politicians have to bend to the aggregated will of the people. Sometimes a politician has to lead.

Liberal Senator attempts to use taxpayer's money for voter tracking software

According to Derek Filderbrant of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Senator Grant Mitchell has intended to use public funds to purchase a partisan political tool. The voter tracking software is used to assist getting out the vote on election day.

You would think that the taxpayers subsidizes political parties enough, but no I guess they want more.

PC Leadership Race: policy summary II

I decided it was time to update my policy summary.

(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
•Consider Musoka part of northern Ontario

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
•Build new highways along vacant corridors around Toronto
•Replace street cars with more busses
•Extend hwy 400 and build hwy 448
•Create a Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
•Increase the value of farm land by amending the restrictions on farm severances
•Remove the red tape that obstructs local consumers from purchasing local food
•Farm property tax assessments and PST tax exemptions will be based on gross farm receipts – not a membership in a farm association.
•Harmonize provincial and federal farm regulations
•Exempt bio-diesel production from excise and sales tax

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
• Introduction of family savings account
•Allow income splitting for families with pre-school aged children
•Enhanced use of phonics
•Highschool exit exams
•Make economic and financial literacy a mandatory part of the high school curriculum
•Eliminate unfair pressure on teachers to make sure students pass even if the student is unwilling or unable to complete the work
•Toughen enforcement on graffiti
•Increase penalties for defacing private and public property
•Expanding capacity at Ontario medical schools
•Promoting flexible retirement alternatives for aging doctors
•Improving recognition for foreign credentials for internationally trained doctors whose training meets or exceeds Ontario’s standards
•Increase the incentives and make it easier for those studying medicine abroad to return to Ontario to practice in their home province
•Focused infrastructure investments to fill the gaping holes in northern roads, bridges, internet and cellular service
•Targeted funds for northern colleges and universities
•Using Crown land as an economic development tool that encourages residential, tourism and industrial development
•Working with municipalities, the private sector and First Nations to facilitate economic partnerships
•Ensuring reliable and affordable energy is available to attract and retain investment in Northern Ontario

Frank Klees
• Supports Senate elections
• Opposed to liberalizing liquor laws
• Opposed to the HST
• A reduction in business taxes and the creation of tax incentive zones to attract new industries and create jobs
• A tax credit against corporate income taxes for new manufacturing jobs
tax amnesty on severance payments
• Propose the implementation of reliable broadband communication networks to assist northern communities
• Ministries of Tourism and Natural Resources be designated as priorities in order to improve destination marketing
• No faith-based private school funding
• A 4-year Ontario income tax holiday for graduates from universities, colleges and trade schools
• Help children with disabilities and specifically autism
• Enhance anti-bullying strategies in schools
• Private delivery public payment for health care
• Issuance of receipts outlining a description of the services provided and the cost to provide those services
• Creation of a council that will provide a second opinion on health issues
• E-health record system
• $200 million for youth mental health services, as recommended by the McMurtry-Curling • Report, “Roots of Youth Violence.”
• I will propose to review long-term care facilities
• Eliminating local health integration networks
• Creation of a ministry of long term planning
• Development of a trans-Ontario high-speed rail link connecting east, west, north and south
• Stable, predictable and reliable funding for transportation infrastructure projects
• Reach out to minority groups
• An energy policy that embraces renewable energy as an important component of Ontario’s overall energy supply
• pursue affordable and sustainable energy that will allow renewable generators to be a part of a balanced mix of electricity generation through a competitive process

Speech given by Wildrose Alliance leadership contender Danielle Smith

I must say that I am impressed by this speech. She seems to have a complete grasp of the situation now facing Alberta. I hope that she can give Ed Stelmach a run for his money.

Ron Paul on Tobacco Freedom

This is the latest article written by former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Moving Towards Tobacco Prohibition

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States. It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry. It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good. Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Read More

Canada's War on Drugs

Peirre Lemieux at the Western Standard has written a piece criticising the government for their tough of marijuana policy. I strongly believe in the state's responsibility to keep peace in society. This sort of law, however, does nothing but make war on the 45% of Canadians that have tried marijuana.

The liberticidal 'war on drugs

Bill C-15, imposing mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related "crimes", passed on third reading. Expect to lose more of your liberty.

Pierre Lemieux - June 12, 2009

You believe that mind-altering drugs are not conducive to the good life and cause broken lives (instead of being the consequence of them), that individuals who consume them are not always the most endearing representatives of mankind, and that your own children should stay away from drugs?

Even if you believe all this, you should strongly disagree with Bill C-15, adopted in third reading by the House of Commons on June 8. The new law will, among other repressive measures, impose minimum jail sentences to anybody convicted of trafficking marihuana or producing whatever small quantity of it for the purpose of trafficking.

More generally, even if you believe everything in the first paragraph, you should oppose the so-called "war on drugs". The Economist, the famous British magazine which combines an incestuous attachment to the establishment with a genuine concern for (some of) our liberties, has criticized the war on drugs for two decades. “By any sensible measure”, they wrote in a recent issue (May 5th, 2009), “this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.” Even the new U.S. “drug czar” expressed some doubts about the all-out war on drugs which the U.S. government has exported and imposed all over the world.

Read More

PC Leadership race: summary of the CTF's questionnaire

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation sent out a questionnaire to each of the PC leadership candidates. Below is a summary of their response.

Topics:
Provincial Taxation
Municipal Taxation
Provincial Spending
Democratic Reform and Accountability
Healthcare Reform
LCBO Reform
Speech, Property, and Association Rights

(Christine Elliott declined to fill out the survey)

Provincial Taxation

Will you commit to repealing the health care premium tax?
Frank Klees: No
Tim Hudak: No direct answer; work with the grassroots to determine tax cuts for platform
Randy Hillier: No direct answer; proposes a Tax & Expenditure constitutional amendment

Will you commit to a more robust and enforceable Ontario Taxpayers Protection Act?
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: Yes
Randy Hillier: proposes a Tax & Expenditure constitutional amendment

Will you commit to working with the federal government towards a bilateral constitutional amendment entrenching said act, therefore protecting it from repeal or undermining?
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: No
Randy Hillier:Proposes a Tax & Expenditure constitutional amendment

Municipal Taxation

Will you commit to enact legislation implementing a municipal property tax cap to ensure municipal property taxes don't increase by more than the rate of inflation without a referendum?
Frank Klees: No
Tim Hudak: No
Randy Hillier: Will end property taxes in favour of a revenue sharing formula

Provincial Spending

Will you commit to enacting legislation capping annual provincial spending increases at a rate of the combined growth in the inflation and population rate?
Frank Klees: No direct answer; promises restraint
Tim Hudak: Proposes measures with same goal, but not legislation
Randy Hillier: Proposes a Tax & Expenditure constitutional amendment

Will you commit to enacting legislation that restricts the government from increasing spending during the fiscal year (other than declared emergencies)?
Frank Klees: No
Tim Hudak: No direct answer; will commit end of year surpluses to debt repayment
Randy Hillier: Proposes a Tax & Expenditure constitutional amendment

Will you eliminate corporate welfare - including auto bailouts - from the provincial budget?
Frank Klees: No
Tim Hudak: Yes (qualified)
Randy Hillier: Yes

Democratic Reform and Accountability

Will you commit to work with the federal government in holding senate elections?
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: Yes
Randy Hillier: Yes

Will you commit to enact a Citizens' Initiative Act, giving Ontarians the right to initiate and vote in a binding referendum on issues of importance?
Frank Klees: No direct Answer
Tim Hudak: Supports use of referendums, but does not comment on initiative
Randy Hillier: Yes

Will you commit to enact a MPP Recall Act, giving Ontarians the right to recall their MPPs?
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: No
Randy Hillier: No

Will you commit to disclose a complete list and dollar amount of all campaign contributions you have received during this PC leadership campaign no later than one week before voting begins?
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: Yes
Randy Hillier: Yes

Will you commit to introduce legislation requiring pre-election campaign contribution disclosure for all future elections (general provincial, municipal and party leadership) in Ontario?
Frank Klees: No direct answer; argues for review and reform
Tim Hudak: No direct answer; will review laws if elected
Randy Hillier: No; already in place

Healthcare Reform

Will you commit to give Ontarians the right to purchase private health insurance to cover costs incurred by those who pay for timely access to medically necessary procedures?
Frank Klees: No direct answer; allows for private delivery of services
Tim Hudak: No direct answer; allows for private delivery of services
Randy Hillier: Yes

Will you commit to ending public funding of non-medically necessary procedures?
Frank Klees: No direct answer; argues for review and reassessment
Tim Hudak: Yes
Randy Hillier: Yes

LCBO Reform

Will you commit to reforming the LCBO's government monopoly? If so please explain
Frank Klees: No; proposes an efficiency review
Tim Hudak: No direct answer; will allow for wine sales outside of current regime
Randy Hillier: Yes; will allow for beer and wine sales outside of current regime

Speech, Property and Association Rights

Will you commit to working with the federal government towards a bilateral constitutional amendment entrenching property rights? If so, explain.
Frank Klees: Yes
Tim Hudak: No; will support federal initiatives and introduce a Property Owners Bill of Rights
Randy Hillier: Yes

Will you commit to enacting legislation making union membership voluntary, while supporting the right of workers to join unions as a matter of choice?
Frank Klees: No direct answer; will develop policy with party on freedom of choice for workers
Tim Hudak No direct answer; proposes to restore secret ballot to union votes and more transparency
Randy Hillier: Yes

Tim Hudak and his middle class idiocy

It is not unusual for politicians to blatantly pander to certain sections of society. In fact such pandering is often a sign of a successful and savvy political operative. There is an art, however, to pander without sounding like an idiot. Tim Hudak, I am sorry to say has failed at this endeavour.

I remember going to the candidates’ debate in London. It was actually one of the best politician’s debates that I have ever seen. Most of the candidates were not only respectful of each other; they were respectful of the audience. They respected the audience by not talking down to them or just mouthing meaningless rhetoric. They talked about issues of property rights and rule of law in a thoughtful and honest manner.

I say most and not all candidates because Tim Hudak did not show such respect for his fellow party members. He could barely allow a sentence to go by without proclaiming his love for ‘the middle class.’ The great mantra of his campaign is that he is the one to do what is best for this loose and ill defined group that sociologists and some economists call the ‘middle class.’ I am sure that I have heard more meaningless babble from politicians in my life, but in contrast to his three opponents...well let us just say that he looked like a fool.

The low point is when there was a question regarding the rule of law. The other three candidates all spoke eloquently about the need to enforce laws equally to have a free and just society. Tim Hudak opened his answer with, “The rule of law is a middle class value.”

I laughed.

How could I not laugh at the absurdity that his campaign had become? The rule of law is not a middle class value. It is a human value. A human value that is fundamental to a good society and peaceful existence. The rule of law is one of the great accomplishments of human progress. Mr. Hudak has managed to shrink the concept down to his narrow pandering needs.

Before you accuse me of being biased against Tim Hudak; I was once a great fan of his. I once cheered his name in model parliament as he took the Speaker’s seat. He was on my list of potential John Tory replacements even before the 2007 election.

It is Mr. Hudak that has disappointed me.

Tax Freedom Day

Today is the day that the Fraser Institute calculates as when Canadians have made enough money this year to pay their taxes. That's right five months into the year and you are finally working for yourself and not the government.

To celebrate the Fraser Institute has released this video.

Tim Hudak on faith-based school funding

I have received another anonymously made video.

This video talks about Tim Hudak's support for faith-based school funding. The video points out that he took credit for the policy and claimed to 'champion' it.

Of course every candidate in an election is generally obligated to support the platform. However, usually if a candidate does not like a particular piece of the platform they don't go out of their way to promote it and identify them self with it.



The previous video was kind of amusing but many commentators questioned how seriously it should be taken. This video, on the other hand, does raise a valid point. Mr. Hudak identified himself as a long time supporter of one of the most disasterous policy plank in recent memory. I think it is fair to question Mr. Hudak's judgement on this issue.

Randy Hillier's bear in the woods

One of the most famous and successful political ads of all times was Ronald Reagan's Bear. The bear was a metaphore for the Soviet Union and the ad's message was that the United States should be as strong as the Soviet Union.

Randy Hillier has is own twist on this ad:



More details about his bear policy is here.

This is the original:

Question Period: Hudak vs Elliott

Ability to navigate the sparring of question period is considered an important talent for a Leader of the Opposition by many of the PC Party members voting in the leadership race. The candidates Christine Elliott and Tim Hudak have both made videos that showcase their abilities. I reproduce them for you here so that, those of you who will vote, may have another way to judge the two main contenders.

Ontario PC Leadership Poll Analysis

Ipsos Reid has come out with a poll for the Ontario PC leadership race. The numbers they give are: Elliott (35%), Hudak (24%), Hillier (22%) and Klees (20%). Perez Hudak has a further breakdown of these numbers. Assuming Perez Hudak is correct, here my calculation of the how the leadership balloting will look.

1st Ballot: The 1st place votes are as follows - Elliott (19%), Hudak (13%), Hillier (14%) and Klees (11%). Since people that don't vote will not be counted, I adjust these numbers out of 57% to get the first ballot results - Elliott (33%), Hudak (23%), Hillier (25%) and Klees (19%). Klees has the lowest total and would be out after the 1st ballot.

2nd Ballot: The 2nd choice vote totals for the remaining three are - Elliott (28%), Hudak (18%) and Hillier (14%). Since we are not given transition matrices of the preferences (ie. we don't know who people that picked Klees first support 2nd), I assume that all the candidates have the Klees votes distributed based on their 2nd choice totals. The 19% from Klees would be broken up as follows - Elliott (9.0%), Hudak (5.8%) and Hillier (4.5%). The second ballot results would be - Elliott (42.3%), Hudak (28.6%) and Hillier (29.1%). Hudak would be out after the 2nd ballot.

3rd Ballot: Assuming the the Hudak votes split at the 2-1 ratio for Elliott (since her 2nd choice was twice as much as Hillier's), she would win easily with 61% of the final ballot.

There are some obvious criticisms of this poll. The most common one that I'm seeing is that they didn't have access to party lists, so they were just using people that self identify as PC supporters, whether or not they are party members. While this is completely true, it is partially mitigated by the 43% of respondents that did not answer. I'm sure some of the 43% could be party members that have yet to make up their minds, it seems more likely that these would not be members. Of the remaining 57% that did answer, there probably is a higher proportion of party members. While using PC supporters instead of exclusively using members is a problem, I don't think it is the biggest problem with the poll. If we break up the PC supporters into two categories: non-members and members. Do we have any evidence that the subset of members is different than the subset of non-members? If Ipsos Reid did ask if the respondent was a member, even with the smaller sample size, I would be curious to see if this subset was much different from the non-members.

I think the biggest issue with the poll is that the Ontario PC Party does not vote by a pure one-member one-vote system. Each riding is given 100 Electoral Votes (unless there are less than 100 votes cast in a riding, in which case the EV's would equal the votes cast). They way to combat this would be to weight the results by ridings and I don't see it indicated that this was done.

Even with the above criticisms, I don't see an obviously better (and cost effective) polling strategy. The only people with the membership lists are the campaigns, and I wouldn't trust a poll out of any of their camps. Ipsos Reid presumably has no motive to sway the results of the race and actually has incentives to be correct.

I am not confident that Christine Elliott really has this big of a lead, but it certainly should raise some questions about the conventional wisdom that Hudak is in the lead. I think it will come down to whichever candidate actually did sell the most memberships to their suppporters.

PC Leadership Race: Elliott the new front runner?

According to the National Post, a poll has come out that has Christine Elliott solidly ahead of Tim Hudak and the other two leadership contenders.

Christine Elliott: 35%
Tim Hudak: 24%
Randy Hillier: 22%
Frank Klees: 20%

I think it is officially time for Tim Hudak's campaign to give up the idea that they are the front runner. They tried to guarantee this election by gaining the support of the party elites, but unfortunately for them politics doesn't work that way anymore.

Sadly the article didn't say who was the second choice of the supporters of the various candidates. If these numbers hold I suspect that it could go to three counting of the ballots.

A fascinating number that was reported; 43% are not yet decided. With three weeks left to go there is a huge number of potential supporters for the candidates to hustle to win over.

In short, this race is far from over for any candidate.

Tim Hudak's endorsement video

This was sent to me anonymously:

Greed is good