Ontario's Left & the Bully Pulpit of Unlimited Spending

Campaign finance law needs to reign in labour unions

Canada's elections law essentially allow ganging-up by anyone willing to establish a third-party campaign.

It's no secret. The 2011 federal election was a splendid example of an attempt to do this, as dozens of far-left campaigns sprung up, eager to defeat the governing Conservative Party through the organization of strategic voting and, in some cases, outright lies.

So long as registered third-party campaigns are willing to stick the truth, they for the most part present no great dilemma for campaign finance law. At least not at the federal level.

At the provincial level, however, particularly in Ontario, it seems that there is a problem. A big one.

In Ontario, it seems that third-party campaigns face no spending limits, allowing some third-party campaigns to essentially gang up and bully the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, who are subject to spending limits and cannot effectively defend themselves.

The Working Families Coalition is the most publicly-known example. It claims to be independent of the Liberal Party, but was in fact directly organized by the Liberals. Another example that comes to mind is the "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign organized and operated out of then-Attorney General Michael Bryant's campaign offices.

In each case, Elections Ontario opted to ignore the undeniable connections between these organizations and the Ontario Liberal Party and treat them as an independent third-party. What had actually happened is that these groups allowed the Liberal Party of Ontario to breach campaign spending limits.

It's evidence that Elections Ontario is just as ill as Elections Canada, and needs the same overhaul of the people running the institution.

“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” remarked York University political science professor Robert MacDermid. He recently produced a report that demonstrates just how badly organizations like Labour Unions have abused the system in their bids to help out their partisan allies. (In the case of public service unions, this amounted to picking their own bosses.)

“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” MacDermid says of the federal campaign finance laws.

It's worth noting that the Coaliton for a Better Ontario came out on the side of the then-Mike Harris led Tories in 1999. Any connection between that organization and the Ontario Tories is unknown to this author, but just as troublesome if they existed.

MacDermid suggests the provincial Tories wouldn't complain if such a group were helping them, and he's likely right.

For Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's part, however, he's naturally pleased with the current status quo.

“We’ve got a great system here,” McGuinty remarked. “There are so many different avenues for people to give expression to their opinion. I believe in a strong collision of ideas.”

Unfortunately for McGuinty, that isn't what's happening right now, and he knows it full well. What is currently taking place is that his party has organized an environment in which they and the third-party campaigns they themselves organized can gang up on the PCs, whose own hands are tied.

Under the watch of the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's lax rules on third-party campaigning have become a bully pulpit from which they can unfairly dominate their opponents. It needs to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.

TDSB on Parents: Screw You. Does the Ontario Liberal Party Agree?

TDSB refuses to hear concerns of parents on anti-discrimination curriculum

As the Ontario election showly plods toward its conclusion, it seems that the Liberal Party has become increasingly frustrated with its inability to take a lead and put this election away.

Now, they're resorting to their typical tactic of last resort: accusing their opponents of bigotry.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has taken up the issue of the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, placing it at the centre of the election. And rightfully so.

The Liberal Party and various far-left groups have predictably declared a new flier being distributed by the Tories to be "homophobic". It's typical far-left bully language, trying to intimidate their opponents into silence.

It was tried once before. When a controversial sex education program was proposed by the McGuinty government, any who objected to the education of Grade 6 students in matters such as anal sex were declared to be homophobic. Contrary to the intention of activist groups to intimidate religious groups, and ordinary parents, out of the debate, public pressure instead built until McGuinty's government was forced to postpone the changes for further consideration.

The TDSB apparently had no appetite for "further consideration", or even for public consideration at all. As reported by Michael Coren, the Equity Advisory Committee of the TDSB decided that public consultation was unnecessary.

One member of the committee who attempted to raise objections to the curriculum was shouted down and declared a homophobe by other members of the committee. The committee, when contacted by producers of Coren's show, were told that this woman was "only a parent." They also accused her of being "singularly destructive."

Nothing could make the attitude of these people toward parents any more clear: the concerns of parents are not to be heard, are not to be considered, are not even to be taken seriously.

They believe they have all the power, and it's their clear intention to deny any modicum of power to parents; at least to those who don't blindly support their extreme agenda.

It isn't that fighting bullying in schools through education is an extreme agenda. However, subjecting children to demagogic (not pedagogic) far-left reeducation programs over the objections of parents very clearly is.

Not everything within the TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum is extreme and outrageous. For example, teaching kids about different family structures is entirely reasonable; many of these children are already growing up in non-conventional family units, so this is very much a live issue for them.

The question of whether or not they're a boy or a girl, however, and the curriculum's teachings on transgendered persons, is not a live issue for these kids. And the recent case of Thomas Lobel, a California child who has apparently decided, on a whim, that he would rather be a girl than a boy.

His adoptive parents have decided to indulge this whim by putting him on hormone blockers, hoping that he can decide by puberty whether or not he wants to be a boy or a girl.

Anyone who imagines a child, even at age 14, is psychologically qualified to make that kind of life-defining decision, is simply out of their minds.

This case underscores precisely what is so irresponsible and reckless about what the TDSB wants to teach young children; planting the question in their heads about whether they are a boy or a girl long before they can be expected to make such a decision while understanding the gravity of the choice.

Contrary to claims by the Ontario Liberal Party, there is nothing inaccurate about the flier. It accurately reflects how eager the TDSB is to trample parental rights in their well-intentioned desire to stop the bullying of gay, lesbian and transgendered people in society.

It's not their intentions that are misguided; it's their actions.

The Toronto District School Board is apparently more than content to thumb its nose at the rights of parents. In jumping all over this issue, the Liberal Party seems to be sending a message to the parents of Ontario that it's willing to do the same.

They should not be rewarded at the polls for this. Quite the contrary: they should be punished with the loss of their government until such a time that they are willing to approach these issues responsibly.

TDSB Criticisms Have the Kangaroos of the Far Left Hopping

With the far-left desperate to silence any criticial discussion of the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, it was only a matter of time before things came to a head.

With the Toronto SUN printing the controversial ad by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values, even after the National Post was cowed into printing an apology for it, the activists desperate to conceal the authoritarianism underlying the anti-discrimination curriculum have finally decided to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.

It was inevitable.

At least one blogger is bragging about having complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The clear goal is to harness the power of the state to shut down any discussion of the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum, whether it's actually age-appropriate, and whether or not the TDSB has violated the rights of parents.

The open letter, written by one Kim May of Sarnia, ON, actually includes some rather remarkable ramblings that seem entirely disconnected with the content of the ICV ad:

"...you would have them drawn and quartered if you could...since you are ignorant and intolerant of difference."

"Have you learned nothing from WWII. You can't ship different people off to an camp somewhere, simply for being different. This has been tried in the past."

The extent to which the imaginations of such people has utterly run away with them.

The demagogues and would-be demagogues, crusaders and would-be crusaders, of the far-left have become so indifferent to the concerns of others that they are now demanding that such people be silenced by the state.

If the full scope of the authoritarianism of the far-left wasn't on full display in the TDSB's locking out of parents, it's certainly going to be on full display if -- more likely when -- the Ontario Human Rights Commission decides to pursue far-left vengeance against Charles McVety in all its kangaroo court glory.

Juast as they have so many times before, they will take Charles McVety and make him a sympathetic figure in the eyes of freedom-loving Canadians. All this while they are so blinkered by their own ideology that they can't even see it.

What Time Do the Cows Come Home in Ontario?

Apparently, Nikki Holland will only deny smokes for votes until then

Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.

In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.

"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."

Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.

To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.

She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.

In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.

"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."

It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.

It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.

McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.

Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.

Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.

Both must go, before the cows come home.

Authoritarian Post-modernism Oversteps Its Bounds

LGBT activists freaking out over Institute for Canadian Values ad

Across Canada, LGBT activists are up in arms over a full-page ad placed in the National Post by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values.

In the ad, a young girl is pictured above a caption reading "I'm a girl. Don't teach me to question if I'm a boy, transexual, transgenered, intersexed or two-spirted."

A header at the top of the ad reads: "Please! Don't confuse me."

The ad is in opposition to the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, which has garnered increased public attention since a planning calendar sent home for first grade students came to light. The calendar featured references to prostitution, transgendered people, AIDs, and female genital mutilation.

All of this and more... for six year olds.

The TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum insists that it's age-appropriate. A great many Torontonians -- and Canadians -- are coming to disagree.

LGBT activists quickly voiced their outrage that the ad would be printed, and immediately began to deploy their typical responses, accusing McVety of being a homophobe and a transphobe.

But as it turns out, the ad is entirely accurate. The accusations are merely bully words, intended to intimidate McVety out of the debate, and similarly intimidate anyone who may be inclined to agree with him.

This author is not inclined to agree with McVety very often on these sorts of issues. But your not-so-humble scribe does find one important point of agreement on this particular subject: the authoritarian approach of the TDSB to this curriculum is entirely unacceptable.

In the ad, the curriculum is directly quoted regarding the rights of parents in relation to this curriculum. The TDSB makes itself clear: it believes parents have no right to object to this curriculum.

"'Can a parent have their child accomodated out of human rights education (LGBTQ) based on religious grounds? NO'

'Should schools send notes or permission slips home before starting any classroom work on LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual/two-spirited, queer) issues? NO'

'Can teachers seek accomodation from teaching materials that may contradict their religious beliefs? NO'

'Can schools/teachers choose not to address controversial issues for fear of negative parent response? NO'

'Teachers are obligated to address all equity issues. Any ommisisions that maintain a non-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy are considered to foster a poisoned environment..."

The problem is that the environment is already poisoned, and has been poisoned by the TDSB. Whether one likes or dislikes the religious beliefs of any number of people -- and there is much to dislike about religious beliefs that may lead one into homophobia -- the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to hold such beliefs.

Moreover, parents have the right to raise their children according to these beliefs. They have the right to decide what their children will be taught, for good or ill.

The TDSB does not recognize these rights. They've locked parents out, refusing them their parental rights. It's absolutely shameful.

Meanwhile, some LGBT activists have not only missed the point, but they've lost the plot.

A parody ad, produced by Toronto film maker and LGBT activist Chase Joynt, declares "I'm Chase. Teach me to question everything! Specifically that transgender, transsexual, intersexed and two-spirit are just some of my options."

More is wrong with Joynt's response than can be named in one place at one time.

The first is that Joynt is very clearly an adult. He appears to be in his late 20s, if not his 30s. As such, Joynt is mature enough in life that he can reflect on these issues and make these decisions with a full understanding of whatever consequences they may have.

In other words, while Joynt's own questioning nature -- if it is at all genuine -- is worthy of applause, but he is not a child. Not like the children the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum is aimed at.

Anyone who has had any dealings with children, whatsoever, know that children are far more impulsive than the vast majority of adults. Neither Joynt nor the demagogues at the TDSB have stopped for so much as an instant to wonder about a child who may -- thinking that the idea seems neat -- decide that they are transgendered, not having considered what impact that decision may have on their lives.

Which brings up the other area in which Joynt has entirely lost the plot. LGBT activists have long insisted -- and scienctific studies strongly support this -- that LGBT is not a lifestyle choice. They'd likely tell Joynt to go back and listen to his Lady Gaga CDs a little more closely, because gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were "Born This Way".

These aren't "options", as Joynt suggests. They aren't "lifestyle choices", as far-right anti-LGBT activists insist.

“What’s crucial about any curriculum in regard to identity politics is that it’s providing a breadth of options and potentially the inclusion of LGBT rights in any curriculum at any level is that it affords another opinion,” Joynt insists. “While I think there is opportunity to speak to things such as when is age appropriate, the ability to learn about those identities is integral to our success as educators.”

If Joynt is really interested in fostering discussion about whether or not this curriculum is age-appropriate (and that would be welcome, indeed), the least he could do is not obscure this issue in his counter-ad.

In the end, this issue is very simple: the postmodern leftist ideology behind this curriculum has overstepped its bounds, adopted the trappings of authoritarianism, and violated the rights of parents.

If it's up to Charles McVety and the Institute for Canadian Values to rally ordinary Canadians to shove the footsoldiers of this grievance-mongering demagoguery back across the line, that is what will simply have to happen.

A Horrible Idea Whose Time Should Not Come

Levac: Carbon tax "presently on the table"

In 2008, the federal Liberal party presented to Canadians a proposal that could have precipitated an economic disaster in Canada.

Pitched by Stephane Dion, cobbled together from an idea proposed by Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, they called it the Green Shift. It was essentially a carbon tax paired with income tax cuts.

Yet the income tax "cuts" wouldn't reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian family. Shifted to industry in the form of a carbon tax, those cuts would come back to haunt Canadians in the form of higher prices for absolutely everything. As private businesses are not charities, they would inevitably pass their higher costs along to the consumer.

The best-case scenario was that Canadians would be no better off for indulging the Liberal Party's foray into utopianism. A likelier scenario is that the tax would have scared off foreign and domestic investment in Canada, ultimately leading to an economic collapse.

Now, with the 2011 Ontario election on the line, Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering setting Ontario on this very disastrous path.

With the green energy companies that were to be the feathers in McGuinty's cap failing one by one -- in some cases, failing to do much of anything but provide McGuinty with photo ops -- McGuinty is turning to the last alternative policy that he can to pander to environmentalists.

In an online chat, Dave Levac, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, has indicated that the McGuinty Liberals are already considering a carbon tax.

"It's being reviewed, and some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about it than others," Levac declared. "There is a possibility that a carbon tax is on the table to evaluate, because it already is."

Levac noted that a carbon tax is not presently in the Liberal election platform. This is something of a meaningless detail; many of the things that were in the last Liberal election platform were not done. Many of the things that were done -- including the HST -- were not in the election platform.

Regardless of how sympathetic McGuinty is to a carbon tax proposal, he owes it to the voters of Ontario to not spring it on them as a post-election surprise. The time to tell Ontario voters precisely what manner of a carbon tax is on the table.

If the Liberals had learned from the failure of Canadians to fall for the proposals of their federal counterparts, the answer would be "none at all". Yet as Dave Levac has it, this is not the case.

A carbon tax would drive up the cost of literally everything an Ontario family consumes: housing, energy, groceries, everything.

Dalton McGuinty owes Ontarians the opportunity to use the 2011 election as a referendum on such a prospect. Whether or not he'll be forthcoming with Ontario voters remains yet to be seen.

Warren Kinsella & His Desperate Dog Whistle Politics

As the Ontario provincial election seemingly tightens at the midway point of the election, Warren Kinsella is becoming more and more desperate.

It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.

Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.

In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.

The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.

Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.

Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.

Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.

It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.

The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.

Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.

Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.

It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.

As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.

For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.

David Suzuki Extinguishes His Own Credibility

When the Ontario Liberal Party secured the endorsement of David Suzuki, they were so excited they went out and made an ad about it.

In it, Suzuki extinguishes what little remained of his own credibility. Gushing over Premier Dalton McGuinty's environmental record, Suzuki declares how excited he was when McGuinty promised to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants. He declares the promise to be "a big step" toward fixing Ontario's relationship with the environment.

The problem is that McGuinty made the promise, then promptly set about breaking it. In 2006, he promised to shut down those power plants by 2009. In 2009, he promised to shut them down by 2014 He might not be around to keep that promise in 2014. Even if he is, he probably won't.

Even McGuinty's vaunted green jobs accomplishments are fading, as green energy firms continue laying workers off. Adding to the comedy is McGuinty staging a photo op at a solar panel factory that had shut down production.

In other words, McGuinty's environmental record is not all rainbows and sunshine. It's actually piss-poor at best. All he's offering in the 2011 election is more of the promises he already broke. He'll never keep them.

It only makes sense that the Liberals would work so hard to establish themselves as good environmentalists. But Ontarians aren't stupid, and can spot a broken promise when someone makes it again. In their effort to brand themselves as the party for the environment, they've managed to counter-brand themselves as promise-breakers.

For himself, Suzuki has done worse. In attempting to brand himself the voice of environmentalism in the 2011 election, he's counter-branded himself as an unprincipled hack who offers the Liberal Party's broken promises up as if they were achievements.

He's definitively turned his back on his own credibility. He'll never be taken seriously again.

The Value of a Vote in Ontario? No Less Than $730

Ontario Liberals crassly trying to buy votes

Students in Ontario following the ongoing provincial election were recently alerted to a remarkable fact:

To the Liberal Party of Ontario, their vote is worth money. So much so that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are willing to blatantly buy their votes for anywhere from $730 to $1600 per year.

In a mass email sent out to University of Windsor students, someone working on behalf of the Liberal Party spammed in favour of the party's proposed education policy. The specific language of that email lays out in no uncertain terms how the Liberal Party is appealing to these students:

"So [the Liberal Party] are going to support all middle-class Ontario families with a 30% across-the-board post-secondary undergraduate tuition grant.That means - every year - the families of five out of six students will save $1600 per student in university and $730 per student in college.

Neither the NDP nor the Conservatives have an education plan - nothing! Shame on the NDP and the Conservatives for not caring about students, higher education, or the future of Ontario.

We are in battle for our future and you get to help make the choice on October 6th, 2011. As many of you may know, we are currently in a provincial election. On one side there are the NDP and the Conservatives who want to take Ontario off track - cutting healthcare, education, and destroying jobs.

On the other side, there is the Ontario Liberal Party, who is fighting to ensure that we continue to have the best education in Canada, the strongest healthcare, and that we create jobs for everyone. We need to stay on the right track because our future depends on it.

PS. If you are in 4th year and don’t think this amazing policy will apply to you - think again. By voting Liberal, every student will receive half the amount in January - that is $800!"

To describe a blatant vote-buying scheme as an education plan is beyond facetious. It lacks any kind of insight into what is continuously driving up the costs of post-secondary education across Canada and certainly lacks the foresight to address those issues.

Instead, it simply promises to send a government cheque to university students once a year, every year, until the next election. That means that the Liberal Party has offered to buy the vote of post-secondary students for anywhere ranging from $2,920 to $6,400.

And all of this without ever having addressed, or even attempted to solve, a single problem related to the cost of post-secondary education. Finding ways to reduce the costs of providing post-secondary education in the first place would solve this problem once and for all. The Liberals' proposed policy simply shifts the costs away from the student to the taxpayer.

Any political party that respects taxpayers and aims to spend tax dollars responsibly would be absolutely ashamed to have put such a crassly irresponsible and flagrantly self-interested policy forward.

It's political bribery at its finest, and desperation from a party for whom the poll numbers are not what they're telling people they are.

It's ON

CAW President sounding the alarm of a blue scare

There's a provincial election, and it's getting serious.

How do you know an election is getting serious in Canada? When union leaders start sounding the alarm and calling for strategic voting. There's a blue scare afoot, and Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza intends to make it as scary as he possibly can.

"We're asking our members to get politically involved," Lewenza announced. "Look at the campaign and ask yourself... who represents your community and your household the best. I think (people will see) the alternatives are clear. We can't waste our vote on a third party candidate that could split the vote and allow a Tory to win."

Like Buzz Hargrove before him -- Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for encouraging strategic voting during the 2005-06 federal election -- Lewenza has chosen to back away from being an NDP stalwart, and instead encourage members of his unions to blindly vote againt Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party.

"We marched the New Democrat line," he continued. "We thought, ‘this is our party,' but today we have to be more proactive. You have to think strategically to avoid a disaster... If I had it my way, I would try and convince the New Democrats and Liberals to form an electoral coalition so they're not knocking each other off."

Apparently, the prospect of a Conservative government in Ontario is so scary that Lewenza would, if he could, beat his head against the wall trying to convince the Liberals and NDP to work together to defeat them. He chooses to ignore the correlation between banging your head against the wall and headaches by blaming his headache on the Conservatives.

The Conservatives, it seems, aren't prepared to blindly commit themselves to further economic stimulus, even in the wake of a slowly-recovering Ontario economy. Lewenza would really like it if someone would.

"Even though some would suggest Ontario has recovered on a per capita basis... the fact of the matter is that most jobs being created are part-time and precarious in nature," he declared. "Government intervention in jobs is important."

The detail that the billions of dollars already doled out by the federal and Ontario governments has led to jobs that Lewenza considers "precarious" seems to have little impact on his assessment of it. He somehow thinks more of the same would somehow turn out differently.

Perhaps there's even more to it than that. Lewenza would clearly prefer a government that would bow to the demands of unions over the demands of the rest of Ontarians.

"Even though [labour unions] represent 30 per cent of the Ontario population, we influence 100 per cent of some of the public policy issues on things like minimum wage, pensions and health care," Lewenza added. "People are going to have to be reminded that if there's an aggressive challenge against the labour movement, it normally results in more lost time off work."

Hudak, it seems, is not that leader. He's willing to consider the views of people other than labour union leaders.

"We know the history of Mr Hudak in cabinet with [former Premier Mike] Harris," Lewenza recalled. "I remember it like it was yesterday. The first act Mike Harris introduced in the legislature was to dismantle legislation to allow workers to join a union harassment-free. They disbanded the wage protection program for workers."

In fact, Hudak voted with Harris for legislation that required secret ballot votes before a workplace could unionize, stripping unions of the ability to harass and intimidate workers who voted against unionization. It's no surprise that union leadership opposed such legislation.

The election in Ontario is getting serious. For Ken Lewenza, it's as serious as a heart attack. The prospects of a Progressive Conservative government threaten to undermine the disproportionate political influence of labour unions.

It's something that Ontarians should actually welcome. But Lewenza is too busy trying to make them afraid.

Dalton McGuinty's Bizarre Message for Ontarians

In the most recent campaign ad released by the Ontario Liberal Party, Premier Dalton McGuinty seems to have a rather bizarre message for Ontarians:

Ontario has become Canada's Detroit. And it happened under the Liberals' watch.

As reported in the National Post, the ad bears a striking resemblence to a recent Chrysler ad, in which the ad insists that Detori will emerge triumphant from the troubles its been experiencing since the 1980s.

Among those troubles is a murder rate that remains perched atop US statistics.

In some of Ontario's neighbourhoods, things have indeed been troubled. The Boxing Day shooting of a teenager, hit in crossfire from a gang shooting in 2005, was a wake-up call for many in Toronto. But Toronto hasn't degenerated into the kind of Mad Max-esque desolation and violence that has seized Detroit.

And considering that Detroit came to be in the sorry state it's in because of utopian left-wing policies turned dystopic, the "progressive saviours of Ontario" message McGuinty wants to sell is rather comical.

Cetainly, the Chrysler ad the McGuinty Liberals are emulating is a worthy model: it's emotionally stirring and inspiring. Their ad is but a pale comparison, but it wouldn't matter much if the ad were a perfect facsimile.

This was a message that was ill-conceived from beginning to end.

Tim Hudak Flip-Flopping on Human Rights Commissions?

Tim Hudak to play Mr Fix-it with human rights commissions

When the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was choosing its leader in 2009, a quiet battle was waged over the future of Ontario's Human Rights Commission.

Randy Hillier had promised to scrap the tribunals altogether. Fellow contender Christine Elliott offered a more sobered program of reform.

Hillier wound up supporting Hudak after he promised to support his position on the matter. But now it seems that Hudak has changed his mind.

Speaking in Ottawa, Hudak promised reforms that would reduce the backlog of cases before the human rights tribunal and reduce the number of frivolous complaints. He would also institute rules of procedure closer to those of an actual court of law.

For many of those who accept that human rights commissions have a legitimate role to play in Canada, this is a welcome development. However, many of those who were enthused by Hudak embracing Hillier's policy promise are now feeling betrayed; among them is, unsurprisingly, Sun TV's Ezra Levant.

Interestingly enough, Hillier himself doesn't seem to feel betrayed.

On one hand, there seems to be a real air of pragmatism under Hudak's seeming shift. With an election expected to be held in autumn 2011, the McGuinty Liberals can be expected to campaign hard on this issue, fear-mongering the entire way.

On the other hand, Hillier gathered a great deal of support on the back of his promise to shut down the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for good. Those who backed Hillier -- then Hudak -- on the strength of that promise may feel that Hudak is turning his back on them.

Moreover, considering some of the ridiculous rulings to come out of Human Rights Tribunals across Canada -- the Guy Earle case is just one recent example -- support for abolishing these institutions outright is almost certain to grow. Hudak may be preemptively acting to cut himself off from those supporters.

In the long run, Ezra Levant may not be the only one angry about Tim Hudak's change of heart.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 2

Yesterday, the Nexus' fact-checking series into the ShitHarperDid website explored the site's false claims about the Harper government's record on science.

Today, we examine a claim made about the G20 Summit in Toronto:

The clear intention is to blame Harper for the undeniable abuses perpetrated by police at the G20 Summit.

Yet as it turns out, it wasn't Prime Minister Harper who gave police the powers they abused at the G20 Summit. Rather, it was the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty.

The McGuinty government not only changed the Public Works Protection Act to arrest anyone in the vicinity of the G20 Security Zone, but they did it without even debating the matter in Queen's Park. In fact, they went to spectacular lengths to keep the changes secret.

The changes fortunately had a sunset clause built in -- they expired on June 28, 2010. The punchline is that they didn't publish the change in the Ontario Gazette until July 3, 2010.

Unbelievable.

It's actually rather remarkable: ShitHarperDid is campaigning against Stephen Harper on the basis of shit McGuinty did, all while promoting the Ontario Liberals' federal counterpart -- for whom McGuinty's brother David is a candidate -- as a "better option".

Just think about that.

The Elephant in Ontario Classrooms

Catholic teachers campaigning on who their bosses will be

As Ontario inches closer and closer to an expected provincial election in which the Dalton McGuinty government will fight for its political life, an elephant has crept into the room.

And not just the political room. Into the classroom.

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association is charging its members a mandatory $60 political levy to campaign against Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative Party. They plan to assemble a warchest of $3 million.

“Our goal is to elect an education-friendly legislature in order to protect the gains in education made over the past eight years,” OECTA President James Ryan said in a statement.

What Ryan basically means by this is that they'll work to elect a government that will enshrine their interests in education policy.

“When we hear words like merit pay, we think of the Tea Party states in the United States, who have all gone to that and are having massive disruptions in their systems,” he continued, blowing the far-left dog whistle. “We look at Mr Hudak’s statement that there has to be cuts to balance the budget and the only thing he’s willing to protect is front-line health care. Well education isn’t in there.”

But Ryan doesn't have his entire union behind him on this matter. Muted voices of dissent are slowly starting to trickle out from concerned union members. Tim Hudak should know; he's been hearing from them.

“We’re receiving a lot of emails and calls from individual teachers who are quite upset to see their union dues being used in this way, as part of the Working Families Coalition,” Hudak reported.

MPP Lisa MacLeod is deeply concerned about the position dissident teachers have been placed in.

“We’re looking at about $3 million which will go towards ads to defeat Tim Hudak, myself, other PC candidates,” MacLeod said. “And there’s no opportunity for my supporters or any teacher who doesn’t agree with this tactic to opt out. And I think that’s unfair.”

She's precisely right. And it's not just unfair to the teachers.

In the Toronto Sun, Christina Blizzard describes the move as political blackmail. And she's precisely right. It's absolutely perverse that any government employee, in any regard, could campaign on essentially who their bosses will be.

It's doubly perverse that they're doing it before the election is even called.

It's a stark reminder of some of the reforms needed in Canadian election laws; in no province in Canada -- or at the federal level -- should it be legal for public sector unions to campaign during an election. It's a stark and unacceptable conflict of interest.

This elephant cannot be tolerated in classrooms anywhere in Canada. It's time for it to stop.

Dalton McGuinty: Thoughtful Guy

Ontario Premier "concerned with schism" in Tories

Of all the things that can be said about Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, there's one thing that can't be denied: he's a thoughtful guy.

For example, the Ontario Liberal leader recently noted that he's "concerned" about what he believes to be a growing schism within the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

See? Thoughtful guy.

McGuinty's concern stems from veteran Tory MPP Norm Sterling losing his party's nomination in Carleton-Mississippi Mills to newcomer Jack MacLaren. Sterling has since indicated he may vote Liberal in the next provincial election.

“I’m concerned with the schism that might be developing within the party,” McGuinty remarked. “I think Ontarians have come to rely on a Progressive Conservative voice being there to give expression to that perspective. I’m concerned about where that might go.”

Underlying MacLaren oustering Sterling is clearly the issue of property rights: MacLaren, a longtime farmer, is also active in the Ontario Landowners Association.

The OLA was recently described as a "Tory Trojan Horse" in a recent column in the Toronto Star.

MacLaren's victory is an emerging sign that MPP Randy Hillier, former leadership candidate for the party and former President of the OLA, is growing his influence within the party. He's come a long way since being the leadership candidate excluded from Tim Hudak's shadow cabinet.

Certainly, the emergence of Hillier and the OLA could drive up some tensions within the PC caucus, as a strengthened libertarian wing of the party challenges the progressive wing of the party to strengthen its commitment to property rights.

Then again, to pass of property rights as a threat to progressive values is a suggestion that basic and fundamental freedoms pose some kind of threat to progressive ideas. There's no question that many self-identifying progressives share this particular idea, but that doesn't make them right.

McGuinty would certainly shed no tears if property rights became an issue salient enough to split the Tories apart. McGuinty himself has been rather aggressive toward property rights during his tenure as Premier.

McGuinty's Far North Act has proven to be particularly troublesome.

So maybe Dalton McGuinty isn't that thoughtful a guy after all; merely trying to provoke the progressive-leaning wing of the Progressive Conservative Party to mobilize against its growing libertarian wing.

It would spare McGuinty the problem of having to actually address the problems within his own policies.

Nope. Not nearly so thoughtful at all.

Dalton McGuinty: Yesterday's Man Renewed

Desperate, pathetic McGuinty cries 'hidden agenda'

The Toronto Star calls it "feisty". Anyone with a memory of what transpired in Canadian politics over the past 20 years will recognize it for precisely what it is: pathetic.

Of course, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty must expect that Ontarians have a short memory. How else to explain his desperate "hidden agenda" gambit?

Canadians are very familar with the "hidden agenda" gambit. It was a fear tactic, invoked by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, suggesting current Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a "hidden agenda".

How did the story end? The train wreck of corruption that was the Liberal Party became unigorable in the eyes of Canadians, Martin's government was rightly found wanting, his desperation recognized, and Martin was rightly sent packing, never to return.

Four years later, another embattled Liberal -- McGuinty -- has resorted to this pathetic and transparent gambit, just as his opposition seems poised to relegate him to the opposition benches.

This time it's Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, and it comes as Hudak points to the increasing burden McGuinty's government has become to the citizens of Ontario.

“After seven years it has become very clear Premier McGuinty believes in his heart that Ontario families have an infinite capacity to pay for every idea that your team dreams up,” Hudak announced. “They can’t keep up with your hydro bills, they can’t keep up with your HST increase, they can’t keep up with your eco taxes. Families need a break.”

For his own part, McGuinty predictably wanted to change the subject -- to health care.

“Ontario families better ask themselves what’s their secret agenda when it comes to health care," McGuinty announced. "What’s going to happen to their hospitals, their nurses and doctors?”

Of course, the switch to health care wasn't by any means a random change of topic. It was deliberate. Nothing so frightens Canadians as the prospect of deep cuts to health care -- even as health care becomes more and more unsustainable, as governments such as McGuinty's continue to allow it to slide.

“We have a broader, and I think more intelligent understanding of what Ontario families’ concerns are," McGuinty preened. "Yes they’re concerned about their expenses ... levels of taxation.”

“But we will not take our eye off the ball of those other concerns families have,” he continued.

Yet it seems that as support for the Progressive Conservative Party strengthens, and support for the Liberal Party erodes, more and more Ontarians are questioning the broadness or the intelligence of McGuinty's purported understanding of their concerns.

So the Ontario Liberal Party's option of choice is to rewind to yesterday -- regurgitate the "hidden agenda". Run against Mike Harris rather than against Tim Hudak.

It won't work any better for Dalton McGuinty than it did for Paul Martin.

While the Toronto Star may applaud it as "feisty", Ontarians will surely recognize it for what it really is: desperate and pathetic.

Another Case For Uniting Ontario's Right

Ontario PCs and Reform Party dupilicating efforts

Led by Brad Harness, the Reform Party of Ontario has declared its intent to revive the Reform Party as a provincial force in the province of Ontario.

Whenever Ontario holds its next election, Harness and the Reform Party want to run candidates in half of Ontario's ridings, and be a major player in a handful.

“We want to make a real impact in 15 to 20 ridings,” Harness insists.

But the problem for Harness is that the Progressive Conservative Party Ontario is already championing many of the definitive causes of the Reform Party.

Under the guidance of MPP Steve Clark, the Tim Hudak-led Ontario Tories will explore options such as electoral recall and veto referendum legislation, to be enacted upon winning government in a future election.

“Clearly, we need to have stronger tools to put in the hands of Ontario families,” Hudak said. “I do like the notion of citizen-initiated referendum... It is an essential check on governments who often grow too arrogant and out of touch while in office.”

Clark plans to begin by exploring the kinds of options already available in BC and the US. He said his constituents are particularly aware of the options offered in BC, where a provincial legislator can be recalled after 18 months in office.

“A number of them have talked to me and emailed me since talking about what’s happening in BC and why can’t we have some citizen-led process in Ontario,” Clark explained.

In BC, petitions to remove an MLA are subject to approval by the Chief Electoral Officer. Any canvassers must be registered with Elections BC.

If Brad Harness and the Reform Party of Ontario are really serious about advancing the old Reform Party agenda, one would suggest they would be much better off by joining the efforts of the party best situated to advance that agenda -- and, indeed, has already embraced it.

Until they do, they'll simply be splitting the vote between PC and Reform candidates, for a best case scneario in which the Progressive Conservatives and a small caucus of Reform MPPs effectively duplicate each other's efforts.

What Bob Runciman's Appointment Really Means for Tim Hudak

Runciman appointment poses new HST-related trouble for Tory leader

After MPP Bob Runciman was appointed to the Senate, Tim Hudak issued a sparkling statement about Runciman's contributions to the Province of Ontario and to his party.

"Losing one of the most effective and tenacious MPPs in a generation, the Ontario Legislature will be a much quieter place without Bob Runciman," Hudak said. “As a Member of Provincial Parliament, senior cabinet minister and Interim Leader, Bob has been a consistent and determined champion for victims of crime, front-line police officers, the law enforcement community, and hard working Ontario families."

"While his commanding presence will be missed in the Legislature, his many accomplishments including 1,000 new front-line police officers and establishing a Survivor’s Tuition Fund for families of fallen police officers bode very well for advancing the federal government’s initiatives to fight crime and strengthen the young offenders system."

One couldn't expect anything but such a sparkling statement from Runciman's party leader.

But as Hudak continues to face off with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty over the recently-passed HST, he will likely face continuing difficulties over the issue, as his former deputy leader will likely vote to support it in the Senate.

“I’m particularly keen to have a fellow proponent of the HST up on Parliament Hill," noted Premier Dalton McGuinty. "Bob’s been a longtime backer, so it will be great to have him in a position of influence up there."

Although Runciman had previously voiced his support -- in principle -- for the HST, he also criticized the lack of public consulation over the controversial matter.

Runciman isn't the only federal politician to differ with close provincial colleagues over the matter. Christine Elliott and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are husband and wife, although it hasn't affected their home life.

If Runciman does vote in favour of Harmonizing the GST and Ontario's PST, it will almost certainly take some of the fire out of Hudak's attack on the matter in Queen's Park. This is rather unfortunate, as there are as many reasons to oppose the HST as there are to back it.

Poirier Makes the Smart Call

Poirier appointment planned to eliminate by-election

When Stephen Harper's new batch of Premiers takes their place among the members of Canada's upper chamber, one of them -- New Brunswick's Rose May Poirier -- will be absent.

Poirier's appointment won't take effect until February 28th. There's a reason for this.

Poirier is one of two sitting provincial legislators -- the other being Ontario MPP Bob Runciman -- to be appointed as one of Harper's newest batch of Senators. Her appointment will take effect later in order to eliminate the need for a by-election in her riding of Rogersville-Kouchibouguac.

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham must call an election by September 27, 2010.

"Being in close proximity that we are to the next general election on September 27, if the appointment would have been made, effectively, then a byelection would have needed to be called," Poirier explained. "I think that's an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers of New Brunswick."

Bob Runciman's constituents in Leeds-Grenville won't be so fortunate. As Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty doesn't have to call an election until October 10, 2011, they will have to endure a by-election to fill Runciman's place in Queen's Park.

The upside is that at least they will have representation in the interim betwen Runcman's appointment and that election. Poirier's constituents will not -- an unfortunate downside.

Conversely, Runciman's appointment to the red chamber will deprive Queen's Park of its strongest voice for Senate reform.

The delay in Rose May Poirier's appointment taking effect is a shrewd fiscal move. Although Bob Runciman is a worthy appointee to the Senate, his is not so much. This, sadly, is the kind of thing that will happen when active legislators are appointed to the Senate.

Ontario Liberals Failing the Fight

Ontario government needs an anti-human trafficking strategy

Of all the crimes currently being perpetrated by organized networks across the world, human trafficking is easily one of the most dangerous, and easily the most immoral.

So on that note, it should be considered shocking to find that any government in Canada is doing anything less than their absolute best to prevent this horrific crime -- in which women are addicted to drugs and horribly abused in order to maintain control over them.

According to University of British Columbia Professor Benjamin Perrin, the province of Ontario isn't pulling its weight. In particular, the province has failed to provide victims of this crime with the help necessary to get them off the street, keep them off the street, and protect them from their assailants.

"The Ontario government should be very well aware that they are responsible for providing victim services, they're not doing so and that needs to change," fumed Perrin. "That's a major gap."

When Conservative MPP Bob Runciman called upon the Minister of Community Safety, Rick Bartolucci, to commit to examining the strategies other provinces are using to combat human trafficking, Bartolucci's response was notably non-committal.

Bartolucci insisted the Liberal government in Ontario does this on an ongoing basis. But it clearly hasn't taken the matter deeply to heart, as the government has no program worthy of mention.

"Whether it's lack of interest or what it is, I just don't think [the Liberals] have been paying any attention to this issue and taking a look at how serious it is," Runciman noted. "There's really been no reaction from them at all."

"I am astounded that the province of Ontario still does not have a system in place to coordinate services for victims of human trafficking," Perrin said. "It is inexcusable, it is dangerous public policy and it is putting the safety and well-being of victims of human trafficking at risk."

One would expect that any Canadian government worthy of governing in this country would treat an issue like human trafficking with the seriousness it deserves. But considering how the Ontario government handled some other recent cases, one simply has to wonder.

The Liberal government of Ontario is failing to show up for the fight against human trafficking.