How to win the softwood lumber war

National Post, Letters
August 25, 2005

Re: The Case For Surrender, Andrew Coyne, Aug. 24.

Mr. Coyne is right that Canadian provinces are subsidizing timber, and that those subsidies are bad for the economy. They also encourage environmental harm and poor forest management. He also has a clear-cut case on the wrong-headedness of domestic retaliation: imposing more taxes on goods imported from the United States would only lower the Canadian standard of living.

However, I cannot agree that Canada should simply surrender. There is another, quite peaceful, option. Canada should buy some commercial time on major U.S. media networks so that we can speak directly to hardworking, overtaxed American homebuyers.

I can see the commercial now: happy, smiling, Canadians waving their Canadian flags in front of their newly built homes. The overdub: “By overtaxing imported Canadian lumber, the U.S. government has made it more costly to build a home in the United States. But there is an upside: by paying more to build your home, you have made it possible for Canadians to build their homes at lower rates. We, the new home owners of Canada, thank you for your ongoing financial commitment to the housing of Canadians.”

It would not be long before Americans demanded the axe be taken to U.S. taxes on Canadian wood.

Paul McKeever, Oshawa, Ont.

Canadian duties on US imports: attacking Canadian consumers

On August 25, 2005, the Toronto Star published an editorial saying that Canada should speak directly to the American people about the consequences of US duties on imported Canadian lumber. I agree with that part, but disagree with the Star’s suggestion that Canada threaten to “launch a painful trade war”.

US duties already impose a painful consequence for Americans: the duties force American consumers to pay a higher price for their lumber and their new homes. Were Canada to retaliate by imposing duties on imported US goods, Canadians would similarly suffer an unjust hike in their cost of living and a decrease in their standard of living. A trade war would be “painful” to Canadian consumers of US goods, first and foremost.

Our federal and provincial governments must not lose sight of the powerful fact that the Canadian lumber producer’s greatest ally is the American consumer. The appropriate response is to give American consumers an honest and true perspective: that the US lumber producers’ war on Canadian lumber is actually a scheme to loot the pocket books of American consumers.

Courting the 'burbs

National Post, Letters
Saturday, August 06, 2005

Re: A City Stunt that’ll Play Well in the ‘Burbs, Adam Radwanski, Aug. 5.Contrary to Mr. Radwanski’s speculation, Stephen Harper’s promise to make drivers, cyclists and pedestrians subsidize GO Transit and Toronto Transit Commission fares will not “endear” him to those living in the 905 belt. Mr. Harper does not propose that drivers receive a similar subsidy for their gasoline, licensing fees, artificially inflated auto insurance premiums or car maintenance costs. Nor can I imagine that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians will discontinue their current mode of transportation for a chance to give Mr. Harper a peck at the GO’s Kiss ‘n’ Ride.

To make residents of Oshawa, Ont., or Flin Flon, Manitoba subsidize GO and TTC riders is not merely something that will turn off Harper’s “conservative base” — it will rightly turn off anybody who believes that it is wrong to hitch your wagon to another person’s horse. Each individual should pay the full cost of his own freight, and should choose only the method of transportation that he or she can afford.

Mr. Harper would do well to advocate the tried-and-true policy of personal responsibility: “Pay only for what you get, and get only what you pay for.” The something-for-nothingers displeased with that message have already parked their votes and their Volvos elsewhere.

Paul McKeever, Uxbridge, Ont.

Healthcare: Saving the System vs. Saving the Patient

On June 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in the matter of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). The majority of the court found that prohibiting privately-funded health care leads to waiting lists. They concluded that those waiting lists can and have led to deaths and to physical and psychological harm and pain. They concluded that prohibiting privately-funded health care creates patient pain without any corresponding public healthcare gain. And, for those reasons, the majority declared Quebec’s prohibition of privately-funded health care is an unjustifiable violation of an individual’s rights to life and security of the person.

The court’s decision does not render private health care prohibitions in Canada’s other provinces unconstitutional, but the reasons for the decision certainly make it clear that prohibitions in other provinces may in the future be found unconstitutional if their respective government health care monopolies leave patients as poorly attended as they are in Quebec’s government-run health care system: according to the reasons for the decision, Quebec’s prohibitions never would have been declared unconstitutional if Quebec’s government-run health care system had provided “reasonable” levels of health care. Throughout Canada now, the left is staring at that “if” without a blink, and they are engaged in an all-out war of words to make sure that Canadians believe that the court’s decision imposes a duty to dump even more tax dollars into government health care. In newspapers, on television, in the board rooms of numerous left-wing health care NGOs, “how can we improve the government system and thereby keep the prohibitions in place in Canada’s other provinces?” is, foolishly, the focus of almost all related discussion.

One would like to think that at least the National Post – arguably the Canadian newspaper most sympathetic to free market economic reforms – could be relied upon to make the case for privately-funded health care. Such has not been the case. Instead, the National Post has published a number of columns and editorials issuing warnings of possible pitfalls of capitalist competition in health care funding, and promoting what is nowadays politely labelled “corporativism”, “public-private partnership” or “the third way”, but what was originally known as “fascism“: a system in which private companies serve a single payor – the government – which sets down rules and regulations dealing with such things as the nature, quantity and speed of services provided, the prioritization of service recipients, and the prices at which services will be provided.

For example, on June 10, 2005, columnist Andrew Coyne re-assured Canadian socialists and corporativists that:

“Despite what you may have heard, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision does not mean the “end of medicare.” It does not even necessarily mean the legalization of private insurance, at least outside of Quebec. …Conservatives who are already citing the court’s ruling in support of a parallel private health care system…are as unconvincing as the Prime Minister’s smug assurances that all is well because of last September’s health care accord….The case for private insurance would be more compelling were there reason to believe the public system was operating at maximum efficiency…Nor are we lacking for detailed plans for reform. These are to be found…in two other recent inquiries: the report of the Senate committee headed by Senator Michael Kirby, and that of the Alberta government commission headed by Don Mazankowski. Both propose radical reforms to the delivery and funding of health care — but within the envelope of public finance. That is, each would seek to import the basic mechanisms that make private markets such efficient allocators of resources – choice, competition, prices — while preserving the “single payer” model.”

On June 11th, Mr. Coyne continued his pitch:

“But the right of an individual patient to purchase private insurance, in the particular circumstances of his own situation, need not be the model for society as a whole. There may be better ways of alleviating waiting times in the public system than by allowing a private system to work alongside it, which would obviate the need for such drastic remedies. And indeed the evidence suggests there is: a system of “internal markets,” along the lines proposed by the Kirby committee or Alberta’s Mazankowski commission.”

On June 17, 2005, the National Post published a colum by Adam Radwanski, who wrote:

Preserving the same system for Canadians of every social, economic and regional background is a noble and worthy goal; indeed, it’s essential to preserving the sense of social responsibility on which this country has been built. But that aim has been clouded by politicians and interest groups who, to either score points against their rivals or maintain a status quo they benefit from, have lumped together universal care with the manner in which it is delivered…Universality is a question of principle; delivery is one of practicality…Last week’s ruling represents an opportunity as much as a threat — a chance for a long overdue dialogue that puts all the delivery options on the table in order to ensure universality for the long-haul.”

Most recently (on June 29, 2005), the National Post ran an editorial that stated:

With the Liberals having bizarrely dismissed the [Chaoulli] decision out of hand, and with Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh now picking fights with the Canadian Medical Association because doctors dared suggest a role for the private sector in medicare, a Conservative campaign in favour of greater flexibility within the public system could not be more timely.

Given the sort of columns that the National Post has been publishing, that assertion clearly implies private sector delivery of health care services within a system in which government is the only payor. The assertion could not be more counter-productive and harmful to the future of Canadian healthcare. And given that it is coming from a paper that – rightly or wrongly – is widely thought to be pro-capitalist, there is a definite risk that the National Post’s pro-corporativist/anti-capitalist proposal will be mislabeled “capitalist”, thereby undermining the very concept, and defaming capitalism in general. Yet capitalist health reforms, not corporativist partnerships between government payors and private sector service deliverers, are a Canadian patient’s only hope.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. In a system funded only by government, politicians are the only payors. As such, they demand of health care service providers one thing: a system that, by appearing good enough, keeps voter discontent sufficiently low to avoid ejection from office. Vendors – even private sector vendors – respond the only way they can: by rationing healthcare. As a result, patients suffer and die on waiting lists. In truth, this is of little relevance to the politician, because only a minority of voters are in health care waiting lists, and because those who die in line do not vote. It is also of little concern even to a private-sector vendor: having kept the politicians happy, it gets a comfortable, competition-free, seat at the government trough.

Patients do not want better rationing. They do not care if “average wait times” are reduced. They want their own wait times reduced, and they know that decreased averages might have no effect at all on the amount of time they wait. Canadian patients also know that waiting is not the only problem: the quality of service delivered patients takes precedence, as it should, over any socialist, ideologically-driven commitments to “save universal health care”.

Introducing more “private delivery” of publicly-funded health care will not end rationing, it will not improve wait times significantly (if at all), and it most certainly will not improve patient satisfaction. The time is now to allow each Canadian to make their funding of the public system optional. We must allow patients also to be the payors, so that they can call the tune, instead of the government doing so. Their tune, I assure you, will be not “save the system” but “save the patient“. Health care providers then will either play that tune, or go out of business. And that is exactly as it should be.

Let's keep ideas

Toronto Star, Letters

Jun. 20, 2005

Results matter more than broken promises (Editorial, June 19).

That the public cares more about results than about the means used to achieve them is most certainly true. However, I must disagree with your conclusion that “everyone would be better off if politicians promised results instead of mechanics.”

On some level, everyone wants the same things — better services at a lower cost. With all politicians promising those results and avoiding debate on how to achieve them, distinguishing politicians at election time could amount to little more than debates about managerial competence and name recognition.

In response, all parties would be encouraged to choose leaders who were former CEOs or movie stars, no matter how lacking in political vision or courage. But government is not business and it certainly ought not to be show business. To make informed choices in the voting booth, we must each be able to gauge the feasibility of parties’ promised goals by independently evaluating the means by which they propose to achieve them.

Whereas all politicians clearly must “steer clear of empty and counterproductive promises starved of ideas,” it would be an error, and a disservice to the voter, to steer clear of ideas altogether. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario, Uxbridge

The new insanity

The Globe and Mail, Letters
Wednesday, May 18, 2005, Page A20

Uxbridge, Ont. — Re Is Premier In Vanguard Of A New Politics? (May 17):

To avoid the political cost of spending cuts or tax increases, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty pleads for a $5.7-billion contribution of federal revenue to Ontario’s purse.

Such a contribution would violate Canada’s constitution; aggravate secessionist sentiments; blur the lines of political and fiscal accountability; leave Ontario’s spending crisis unaddressed; and spawn harmful copycat efforts throughout all levels of government in all provinces.

Murray Campbell opines that Ontario’s NDP and Progressive Conservative MPPs would “have to be mad” not to endorse Mr. McGuinty’s strategy. If true, the Premier had better beg for an additional, massive federal investment in psychiatric hospitals for those of us who advocate fiscal responsibility, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

Letter to Toronto Star editor re: Non-confidence motion in Parliament

Toronto Star

May 12, 2005

Procedural `tricks’ postponed vote
A matter of political confidence

Opinion, May 11.

It appears that Professor Errol Mendes has allowed his politics to compromise his intellectual integrity. In asserting that “votes of confidence are grave matters that should not rest on procedural tricks,” he points the finger at the Opposition. Yet, surely his assertion applies with equal force to the government, which has used “procedural tricks” to postpone a vote of no confidence. The professor’s political bias is made most obvious by his lament that, “It is also troublesome that the opposition parties will soon get the chance to make a proper confidence motion …” Troublesome indeed.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Canada, London, Ont.

Electoral Reform

What are the alleged problems with Canada’s Single Member Plurality (“SMP”) system (often referred to as the “first past the post” system)? What are the proposed solutions?

Different alternative electoral systems address different problems, but several very different systems are being debated at present as though they address the same alleged problems. This brief primer describes the main electoral systems, and explains the alleged problems that each alternative to the SMP is designed to address.

1. SMP: Description

In the SMP system, one legislative seat is allocated to each geographically-defined electoral district. Federally, there are currently 308 electoral districts (a.k.a. “ridings”).

In the SMP system, the ballot in each riding contains a list of the candidates running in that riding. Voters entitled to vote in that riding mark ONE of the candidates’ names with an X. After the polls are closed, the candidate whose name was Xed on the greatest number of valid ballots wins the seat in that riding.

2. SMP: ALLEGED PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

(a) The “Wasted Vote”

When there are only two candidates on a ballot (e.g., in a two-party system), one casts ones vote for the candidate one most wants to win: ones vote is not “wasted” in any sense. However, when three or more candidates are on a ballot, a voter may feel that his favourite candidate has little chance of winning. Under the SMP, such a voter may decide to vote strategically: he may decide to vote only for one of the subset of candidates who he thinks stand a chance of winning. This way, he thinks, he will not be “wasting” his vote. The problem, however, is that by strategically voting, the voter might get the legislator he voted for, but not the legislator he actually wanted most. The primary solution to the wasted vote involves using a “preferential ballot” in conjunction with an alternative vote-counting system

Preferential Ballot Systems

On a preferential ballot, voters rank some or all of the candidates, rather than just choosing one. When used in conjunction with an appropriate vote-counting system, a preferential ballot solves the “wasted vote” phenomenon.

There are two main electoral systems that use a preferential ballot: the Alternative Vote (“AV”) system, and the Single Transferable Vote (“STV”) system. However, counting of the ballots differs between the AV and the STV. Here’s a comparison of the two systems, quoted from an as yet unpublished paper I am working on:

“In the AV system, like in the SMP system, one individual is selected from each electoral district. If at least fifty percent plus one of the ballots all rank a given candidate as their first preference, the candidate is immediately elected. However, if fewer than fifty percent plus one of the ballots rank a given candidate as their first preference, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is “eliminated” from the count. The ballots that gave first preference to the eliminated candidate are then assigned to the remaining candidates according to the second preferences indicated on those ballots. The process of eliminating last-place candidate and redistributing their ballots process is repeated until one candidate has at least fifty percent plus one of the ballots.

The STV system differs from the AV system in two key ways. First, in the STV system, electoral districts are bigger, and voters select more than one individual to become law-makers. Second, the STV tallies the ballots in a way that tends to result in “proportional representation” (discussed below). Specifically, in the STV system, the greater the number of seats that are allocated to an electoral district, the smaller is the number of votes that a candidate must receive to win a seat (for convenience, I will hereinafter refer to that number as the “Threshold”). Specifically, in the STV system, the Threshold is equal to 1 + [total number of votes cast] / [number of seats + 1]. As in the AV system, last-placed candidates are eliminated and their ballots are redistributed to the remaining candidates until the number of votes received by a candidate meets or exceeds the Threshold and he wins a seat. However, unlike in the AV system, if a candidate who has won a seat received more than enough votes to meet the Threshhold, his “Surplus” ballots continue are transferred to the remaining candidates according to the next preference on those ballots. In fact, all of his ballots are added, not just the a number of ballots equal to the Surplus, but the value of the votes on those ballots is reduced so that the total value of the votes on those ballots is equal to the number of Surplus votes: each ballot adds a fraction of a vote equal to the number of Surplus votes divided by the Threshold. If, after transfering all of the Surplus votes, the remaining candidates still lack enough votes to win a seat, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his ballots are redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the next preference indicated on each ballot. The process of eliminating candidates and redistributing the votes of candidates who win seats or who are eliminated continues until all of the seats for that electoral district are filled.

Both the AV system and the STV system eliminate the fear of the wasted vote. Because both use a preferential ballot, voters can rank their preferences. Because, in each system, a ballot is counted even if its first-ranked candidate loses, voters do not have to fear that their vote will be wasted if they give their highest rank to a candidate who is unlikely to win. The voter, in the AV and STV systems, is not cowed, by polls, media opinion, or next-door neighbours into caring whether or not his favoured candidate is likely to win. Strategic voting is forced to take a back seat to the voter’s conscience. The voter does not need to compromise his beliefs and commitments. The voter can, with the AV and STV systems, respect and value elections.”

(b) Minority Rule / Forcing Compromises

Under the SMP system, a the winning candidate is the candidate that received more votes than any other candidate on the ballot. When there are only two candidates on the ballot, the winner needs 50% + 1 of the votes. But the number of votes needed to win decreases with each increase in the number of candidates. Specifically, the minimum percentage of the vote required to win in the SMP system can be as low as (100 / #of candidates) + 1. So, for example, if there are 10 candidates on the ballot then, if the votes are evenly distributed among the candidates, the winner might win with as little as 10% plus one of the votes.

There are those who dislike this aspect of SMP. The most common argument is that the SMP allows a minority of voters to win a majority of seats in the legislature. Equating the voters’ winning of seats with the voters’ control of the legislature (which, I would submit, is a laughable conclusion), those who oppose this aspect of the SMP say that it violates the principle of “majority rule”: the idea that government should do what the majority of VOTERS want it to do.

However, there is another argument raised against SMP. Specifically, it is said that majority governments are bad because they discourage compromise and collaboration. These advocates prefer perpetual minority governments so that, in effect, radical agendas cannot prevail. Another way to put this, bluntly, is that the left doesn’t want a principled party to win a majority and then not compromise its agenda with those who are opposed to the winning party’s principles.

There are two main electoral systems proposed to “solve” the lack of PR that can occur with the SMP in a multi-party system. Both cause PR electoral outcomes, and both make majority governments the exception instead of the rule: the STV and List Systems

The STV

I have described the STV, above. The key thing to remember when comparing the STV with a List system is that, under the STV, the voter votes for his local candidates, not for parties.

List Systems

List systems are sometimes referred to as “pure PR” systems. In list systems, the voter votes for a party (in some versions of the List system, they also get to indicate a preference of candidates within that party). Each party then is given a percentage of seats roughly equal to the percentage of votes received by the party.

The key difference between the STV and List systems is that List systems give parties the power to decide who will fill each of the seats won by the party. The NDP and Green parties, in Canada, have said that they prefer the List systems because they want to allocate the seats they win on the basis of such things as sex and race: they want to use “affirmative action” (i.e., discrimination) in the selection of MPs. Because the STV provides a PR outcome without allowing parties to choose the candidates, the Greens and NDP oppose the STV.

Education: Financial Post's Chevreau interviews McKeever

Outrage at tax credit reversal

Jonathan Chevreau
Financial Post
Tuesday, December 02, 2003

Canadian taxpayers are generally an obliging lot, considering the top marginal rate in Ontario is still an egregious 46%.

Most of us go along reluctantly with this level of confiscation, play by the rules and plan our financial lives accordingly. We take advantage of the few tax deferment vehicles available, such as RRSPs and registered education savings plans, and make do with comparatively little disposable income.

But when governments change the rules retroactively, as did the Dalton McGuinty Liberal administration in Ontario last week, taxpayers rise up in justifiable indignation.

The public and professional tax experts alike were outraged by McGuinty’s move to eliminate the private school tax credit retroactively to last Jan. 1, 2003.

“It is indeed unfortunate that you can’t plan your affairs with certainty based on the enacted tax laws in place at the time decisions are made … without worrying about the law being changed retroactively 11 months later and benefits being taken away,” says Paul Hickey, national tax partner with KPMG.

Hickey was genuinely surprised by the retroactive move. “I thought it would have been cancelled from say the date of last week’s bill (or going back to the election date at the earliest) or possibly Jan. 1, 2004.”

Since the credit has been around since 2002, people would have already taken the credit into account in their financial planning, Hickey says, “and likely in some cases in their decision as to whether or not they can afford to send their children to a private school.”

The maximum credit for a child age 6 and over in 2003 was supposed to be $1,400 ($7,000 maximum tuition fees times 20%) and $700 for a child under age 6 ($3,500 maximum tuition times 20%), Hickey says. “So if you had two children in private schools (age 6 or older) this retroactive tax change will cost you a cool $2,800 in 2003.”

Parents who put their kids into private schools and planned their financial affairs with the expectation of the credit are understandably dismayed. Ken Klassen is an accounting professor at the University of Waterloo and has two children in private school.

“I’d say it’s unfair,” Klassen says. He had expected the worst case would be the Liberals would repeal the tax credit effective Jan. 1, 2004. So the retroactive repeal exceeded his most pessimistic expectations.

“You make decisions under the assumption the tax system is as it currently exists in legislation. If they actually implement a new provision you can make a decision based on that. But if they repeal it a year and a half late, you’re stuck.”

Speaking myself as a parent in the same situation, the private school tax credit has been nothing more than a series of hopes dashed. When it was first unveiled, it was clear you would have to wait five years before the full 50% (on $7,000) would be phased in. Then even the Eves Tories delayed the implementation, so the second year the credit remained 10% instead of rising to the originally promised 20%.

Meanwhile, many private schools raised their fees, on the expectation the promised credit meant parents could better afford their fees. Needless to say, few intend to lower their fees now the credit has been axed.

With the retroactive elimination of the credit, parents now have the worst of all worlds: higher fees and no credit. I can only feel sorry for any single-income family on a budget that took their kids out of the public system on the basis of this ever-receding mirage of a tax credit.

“It is outrageous and morally wrong,” says John Williamson, Ontario director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “The ETC is good education policy, good for kids and gives parents choice. If the government insists on taking it away, fine! But it should have happened not before the next school year so parents could budget for the change.”

Because of the new administration’s haste in acting on the credit, it was eliminated just in time to be incorporated into tax software programs for the 2003 calendar year, according to Intuit Canada, maker of QuickTax tax software.

Paul McKeever, head of the Freedom Party of Ontario, doesn’t lament the demise of the tax credit, but does believe the “education tax” needs a radical overhaul. By that, he means the part of Ontario taxes (or surtaxes) allocated to the public education system.

“The current method of financing education causes and entrenches educational apartheid,” McKeever says. “By forcing everyone to pay for government schools, it ensures that only the very wealthy will be able to afford to send their children to schools offering an environment or curriculum better suited for their children. Only the very wealthy can afford to pay two tuitions for one child.”

McKeever’s vision of choice in education is to eliminate the practice of forcing people to pay for an education their children do not use. But he also views the Ontario Conservative party’s tax credit as “deeply flawed.”

“It facilitated choice in schools, but allowed government to continue preventing choice in education.” The tax credit went only to parents whose children are in schools which teach the curriculum set out by the Ministry of Education.

“By continuing to force everyone to pay eduction taxes, the PCs ensured that government could continue to dictate curriculum: conditions could be placed on which schools were eligible for the tax credit,” McKeever says.

Ideally, both the tax credit and the “education tax” should be eliminated, McKeever believes. “However, eliminating only the former certainly leaves us worse off than we would be with the tax credit in place.”

Toronto Sun: Letter of the Day

Tuesday, September 30, 2003
LETTER OF THE DAY

FELLOW ONTARIANS, you have the opportunity to elect your member of the Ontario Legislature as little as once every four or five years. That is a long time between elections. Consider how much has changed in your life since 1999, or 1995.

In Thursday’s provincial election, you will, in effect, be choosing your representative in a crew that will guide Ontario over sometimes stormy seas. But your vote will also play a much more important role: It will determine whether Ontario will merely follow the wind, or travel purposefully in a clearly mapped direction to a better future.

This is no time to sell your vote for a few cheap “wedge-issue” promises. In exchange for your vote, you deserve a clear vision for improvement and prosperity, not “experienced management” of the little you already have. A government with the courage to do what is right, consistently, rather than the cowardly arrogance that schemes and flip-flops to avoid the loss of power and prestige. A premier who will work to facilitate Ontario’s success, not someone who seeks only the easiest route to avoid failure.

From electricity to choice in schools, the very things that brought the Tories to power – a commitment to breaking up government monopolies, to more competition, and to more choice and personal responsibility – have now been ejected by the new red Tory management of the Ontario PC party.

In its place is a scatter-brained, make-it-up-as-you-go, grease-every-squeaky-wheel style of governance.

On the issues that will still matter five years from now – education, health, electricity – you will in fact see no real difference between the PCs, Liberals and NDP. All of those parties are firmly committed to forcing you to pay for schools your children do not attend. All are committed to rationed health care. All are in favour of economically naive, dangerous and irresponsible price controls for electricity.

The Freedom Party of Ontario believes the greatness of a society is determined not by its government’s tendency to divide a single loaf of bread evenly, but by the efforts of its members to produce enough loaves for everyone. Individual choice, personal responsibility, dignity, prosperity and justice: That is Freedom Party’s vision for Ontario over the next four or five years. You can find out more about our platform at www.freedomparty.on.ca and we have 24 candidates running across the province. It all starts with your vote on Oct. 2.

Paul McKeever
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario

(Good luck. It appears all right wing parties are going to need it)

« Previous Page