Need a dose of freedom?

This looks promising, maybe.
Gerry Nicholls has announced "a new website......to promote and protect conservative values.....called www.freedomforum.ca ."  He writes: "I want freedomforum.ca to provide a principled, non-partisan voice for the conservative ideals of smaller government, free markets and individual liberty. My hope is this site will help win the war of ideas and mobilize Canadian conservatives to push our political parties in the right direction."
On the website the 'About us' says:
 "A strictly non-partisan site, Freedomforum.ca is dedicated to promoting, defending and celebrating our economic, political and individual freedoms. Its aim is to offset the anti-market bias so prevalent among the mainstream media, political parties and special interest groups and to raise awareness about the moral underpinnings and principles of democratic capitalism and individual liberty. In short, this site is for Canadians who believe our country needs less government and more freedom."


Sounds good right? Here is my problem: since when are smaller government, free markets and individual liberty conservative values?

The word "conservative" is liberally sprinkled all over this website, over and over again. I did a word search for "libertarian" and three articles came up, but none of them actually used the word libertarian, none. So what's up with that? Does strictly non-partisan mean strictly not libertarian, but conservative is OK? Don't words mean anything anymore? Does this new site advocate keeping the status quo? Isn't that what the non-partisan word 'conservative' means?
The dictionary definition of the adjective conservative as in the phrase "conservative values" where conservative modifies values is: conservative (adjective) - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. OK, maybe "restore traditional" values, that works, but who is there in Canada that remembers those values?  By the way the libertarian movement is all about limiting government not limiting change as conservative implies.

Yes, this website looks interesting, even promising. My advice to Gerry and any other writers on this site is that the word libertarian as an adjective actually means "advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty." Isn't that closer to the ideals of smaller government, free markets and individual liberty? I think so. Use the damn word!

Making a difference

In the federal election just passed, the number of rejected ballots in Markham-Unionville beat my total as the local Libertarian candidate, again. But this time it was closer. I’m not discouraged because I know I made a difference. People don’t necessarily vote for or against a particular individual or party, so I don’t feel slighted in any way with only 0.5% of the popular vote.

As a case in point, look at the NDP surge in Quebec and elsewhere. One young NDP candidate never set foot in her riding, had no election signs or campaign office, spent a week of the campaign vacationing in Las Vegas, and was virtually invisible, but won her election handily. Effectively she was a “paper candidate,” riding on the coat tails of her leader, Jack Layton. The Harper majority has presented her with a four-year contract and an annual salary of $157,731 plus perks, just for showing up; not bad for agreeing to help out her party. She obviously made a difference with very little effort. For the NDP it was important to field candidates in every riding across the country for the sake of credibility, even if their candidates were not credible themselves. Helping the party is one important lesson for Libertarian candidates and potential candidates in the upcoming Ontario Provincial election.

For all the considerable effort that I put forth in this election campaign, my vote count barely budged from my 2008 results. It was not for lack of trying. I had an unpopular package to sell the voters of Markham-Unionville. Some day, in the future, that package may look more attractive to voters, but not yet.

This campaign was my second attempt. This time I had signs throughout the riding, attended “all-candidates debates” (except where I was involved with other party matters), I was profiled on the local cable channel, and local newspaper, had a widely heard radio interview on a Toronto Rock station, I used social media like my blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. I also had short YouTube clips online, and a website dedicated to the election campaign. I campaigned with pamphlets from door-to-door and in public areas.

Did it have an effect?

Well it certainly did not translate to votes. However, on several occasions people that I met on the campaign told me that they saw my signs, but didn’t know what the Libertarian Party represented, or more often, they had never heard of the party before. The point is, now they have. No party wins voter trust instantly, and it takes repetition and familiarity; look at the NDP story.

This year is the 50^th Anniversary of the creation of the NDP, and it has taken 50 years of repetitive collectivist rhetoric and thinking for them to achieve the trust of a large percentage of the electorate. Over 30% of voters across Canada (much improved from 18% in 2008) chose an NDP candidate in this election, making the NDP the official opposition for the first time. In those 50 years Canada has changed enormously from a nation that accepted a relatively limited role for government with emphasis on individual, family and community responsibility. The current paradigm in Canada, is one where government should do as much as possible for as many as possible. This happened in a slow but steady evolution, with the assistance of politicians that pandered to the public sector unions, corporations, and was abetted by the public school system, and the mainstream media.   

The other important lesson we Libertarians should take to heart is the role of leadership. If we are going to act like a political party and ask people to vote for us, they need a face, and a persona to go with the party name. The NDP example demonstrates my point; look at what Jack Layton accomplished. In ridings all over the country, disenchanted Liberal and Bloc voters chose NDP candidates sight unseen. That will not happen to us necessarily, but an effective leader allows the generally lazy mainstream media to zero in on one individual who can deliver the message for us all.   

We have much to offer to a thinking electorate. We are the only party where principles of freedom would direct policy.  The only party that openly advocates free enterprise, reduced spending, reduced government, and actually means it. The problem is we are few, and it will take each of us to make a difference, but make no mistake, you can if you try.

The above article originally appeared in The Libertarian Bulletin, The Newsletter of the Ontario Libertarian Party Summer 2011, Vol. 31 No. 4

What's wrong with full-day Kindergarten?

I've written and posted on this blog before about our overpriced, and over-managed education system that limits the options of parents in Markham and throughout Ontario with regard to their children's education.

A recent discussion in the Markham Economist & Sun about the Liberal government's plan to expand kindergarten has given me the opportunity to publicize my views in that newspaper's "Letters section." 

If you read the link you will see that there is disagreement around the appropriateness of full-day kindergarten for some students. It doesn't work for everyone and some studies show that it really isn't cost effective. For example: the clipping below right is from a study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy that deals with evidence-based effects of class size reductions and full-day kindergarten on test-score outcomes of students. For full-day kindergarten it shows that there is an effect on scores compared to half-day kindergarten, but the effect all but disappears by the end of Grade One and is gone by Grade Five.

In a follow-up letter to the Markham Economist & Sun article, one of the YRDSB trustees (see below) pointed out that kindergarten is optional. Well, that sent me to my computer and I recycled older files to produce the following letter: 

Re: Children don’t have to attend kindergarten May 14^th, 2011

To the Editor,

I’m certain we all feel reassured by the letter from YRDSB Trustee Joel Hertz.

Mr. Hertz assures parents that they can opt out of sending their children to full-day kindergarten. It is great to have that choice. It would be even better if parents could opt out, or at least redirect their school-based taxes to schools of their own choice.

Mr. Hertz also highlights the report by Charles Pascal indicating, “Full-day kindergarten can result in greater academic achievement and social success.”

Pascal’s report called for kindergarten classes of 26 students supervised by a teacher and an early childhood educator (ECE). Daycare would also be offered and supervised by ECE people at a reasonable fee at the same location from 7 am to 6 pm outside of the regular school day. This day care could be extended to 6 to 12 year olds if there is sufficient demand. The recession has delayed full implementation, but it is being phased in, and that will be completed by Sept. 2015, with initial costs of $500 million in the first two years and likely beyond the recently revised estimate of $1.5 billion.

Superficially it may appear that this program identifies children’s problems earlier so they can be dealt with earlier, and it benefits all other children, but the evidence for that is scant. Even if there was good evidence, is it really cost effective or desirable?

I should add that there is plenty of evidence that shows that the benefits accrued to children in the full-day program seems to disappear by the time the children leave the primary division (before Grade 5).

What else is wrong with full-day kindergarten?

It increases the government’s monopoly on education, while increasing the size of the public sector at the expense of private sector day and childcare, and reduces choice. It replaces market incentivized childcare workers with less accountable, less competitive, unionized teachers and ECE employees at greater cost. It further increases the dependence of citizens on government-sponsored programs. And it creates a new government-union partnership that invites province-wide daycare strikes in the future when the partners disagree.

As long as educators have no incentive to make substantive improvements, most will continue to behave as before and Ontario schools will strive to reach mediocrity at a high price.


By the way, you may be interested in this article about the limits of the welfare state from the Swedish perspective. Is Canada moving in that direction?

Election Day Autopsy Final Thoughts

Last weeks election has altered the political landscape of Canada (see left, the top chart are 2011results, bottom are 2008 results) , but only reflects what people have already been thinking. Elections summarize past thinking and events rather than project the future. There should be a line on each ballot that says: "past performance does not guarantee future results," like all the mutual fund companies are required to do.
This past week the mainstream Canadian media have focussed on the demise of the Liberal Party, the surge of the NDP and their rookie caucus, but very little on the most important result, namely what a Conservative majority might mean for the future.
Stephen Harper and his gang now have free rein, there are so many in the media and the general public that openly hated the Harperites, that I'm surprised that angry demonstrations have not materialized, though that may yet happen.
What will the Conservatives do with their majority? On May 6th I discussed the National Post's priority list. If Harper wants to keep his fiscally responsible supporters he is going to have to stop kowtowing to the other parties for their support, Gerry Nicholls says precisely that here. Of course Harper has no need to kowtow anymore, but he really needs to show that things will be different. One way he could do this was suggested by a Quebec writer a couple of days ago, and I like it. Appoint Maxime Bernier, a fallen cabinet star, to President of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day's old job. I think that is a great idea, I have always viewed Mr. Bernier as "libertarian-lite" and this would be a perfect place for his talents as outlined in the article.
There are those that say Harper should not govern with an ideological bent because he will be accused of pulling out his "hidden agenda." When the Liberals or NDP suggest a new policy program for every little thing that ails us, they were never accused of being ideological, but of course they were. Its time we had some fiscally prudent ideology from the Conservatives, I hope it happens, but like some I'm not holding my breath.
In that article, Terence Corcoran suggests that the Conservatives acted like centrist Liberals in this election. This may be why the Liberals had such a poor showing, they had no where to go but to stray into "progressive socialist" territory, a realm already occupied by Jack Layton and the NDP, and since Layton was far more popular than Ignatieff, people chose Layton and the Liberals became redundant. In Ignatieff's election night concession speech he suggested he would stay as leader until he was no longer needed, 10 hours later was gone, and a day or so after that he was back to being a teacher, this time at the University of Toronto.
One of the best things that happened in this election was the collapse of the "fake-federalist-party" Bloc Quebecois, from 49 seats to 4, well deserved. Of course the poor Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, is left only with a paltry $141,000 annual pension. Who got suckered there? 
I haven't mentioned Elizabeth May's impressive victory in British Columbia. She worked hard and moved there to find just the right group of deluded individuals from the wet (yes I mean wet) coast, land of Suzuki and all things environmental. I'm sure she will do an outstanding job of representing those people, she has proven she can play with the big boys in the 2008 leaders debate. Her party however, the Greens, is a dying force in Canada. Percentage  draw this time was 3.9%, down from 6.8% in 2008 (then approaching the peak of climate change hysteria at COP 15), down from 4.5% 2006, and even down from 4.3% in 2004. In the light of NDP cap and trade policy, the Greens are redundant as much as the Liberals. Lawrence Solomon has an interesting link that compares political support of global warming activism in today's Post.
Now on to the Ontario election, less than 5 months away, thankfully a date that was known well in advance.

Election Day Autopsy Part 3 - A hidden agenda suggestion

There in the chart you see the preliminary results of Monday's election (click to enlarge). The Libertarian Party had candidates in only 23 of 308 ridings across the country. If the Libertarian vote count in the chart were projected for the all 308 ridings, it would amount to about 0.5% of voters, about the same as I achieved in Markham-Unionville. Among so-called minor parties we did well, especially compared to the Marxist-Leninist/Communist Parties with a total of 93 candidates but only twice our vote count.
Most of the polls in this election got the party order of finish correct (first to fourth) but they really missed on the important outcome. Gerry Nicholls, who calls himself one of the top five political minds in Canada, actually made some fairly accurate predictions, including the timing, the Harper majority, and the Liberal Party's demise (he thinks they are done for good).
Advance polls in this election were busy, giving the Statist media (CBC etc.) hope that a major change like a Harper defeat was imminent. No such luck, polls are run by fairly inexperienced temporary employees so it doesn't take much incompetence to create a long lineup and the illusion of a crowd. The actual voter turnout (61.4% of eligible voters) is not significantly different from 2008 (59.1%), and my theory that BIG government causes small turnouts still holds.
Of course the most important thing that happened in this election was the Harper majority. It has been a while since a majority government  (Chretien 2003)  ran the country, one that does not have to pander to the other parties. Mr. Harper has a Master's degree in Economics, he is not a fan of J. M. Keynes, at least that was the conclusion in his 1991 Master's thesis:

So we can hope that Mr. Harper, now unleashed with a majority, will actually encourage free markets in Canada. We can hope. 

The National Post in their editorial May 4th outlined what should be on Harper's agenda, I think it represents a good start for a freer Canada. Here it is in italics with my added commentary:

1. Balance the books within three years. Good, but don't stop at that, phase out entire government departments and portfolios as well.

2. Enact income splitting. Yes, it cuts taxes for families but also revenue for government, so see #1.

3. Offer all Canadians full freedom of choice in health care. Starting immediately, the government should suspend the application of the Canada Health Act for the duration of its mandate, to allow provinces freedom to experiment with alternate financing and delivery models, including private insurance and hospitals. Excellent, and allow universities to open up medical schools to more students, and encourage competing medical licensing organizations like the OMA or CMA.  

4. Pass new crime legislation - but strike a better balance between punishment and the protection of society. Certain provisions, such as those prohibiting prisoner contact with visitors, for example, serve no discernible purpose and come across as merely mean-spirited; they should be scrapped. Likewise, mandatory minimum sentences for Canadians who own a few marijuana plants (a substance that should be legal anyway) make no sense. Moreover, the law should be reformed to ensure that Canadians engaged in legitimate acts of self-defence are not treated like criminals by our justice system. Rather than just this, move to decriminalize marijuana altogether, and look for ways to provide restitution for victims of crime possibly instead of incarceration for non-violent criminals.

5. Abolish the gun registry (finally). Good start in first mandate.

6. Increase funding to the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans. If Canada is to play a serious role on the international stage, assert our sovereignty in the Arctic, and take care of our veterans after they have served their country. I disagree, maintain or reduce funding and remove our troops from their role on the international stage, period. But take care of the veterans that have suffered in those ill-advised international adventures.

7. Stop distorting internal markets through corporate welfare, regional handouts and protectionism. In this category, we would also put the Canadian Wheat Board, which should be put out of its misery at the earliest possible opportunity. Good start for the first mandate.

8. Reform the Senate to make it equal, elected and effective - and subject to term limits. A worthy goal.

9. Scrap political-party welfare, otherwise known as the public per-vote subsidy. While Quebec voters have mercifully defunded the Bloc Québécois on their own, by slashing their support and the dollars that accompany it, the government should now make good on its pledge to cut the cord for all parties. Absolutely.

10. Reinstate a culture of openness, transparency and accountability on Parliament Hill. Now that the Conservatives have a majority, there is no excuse (not that there ever was) for the paranoia, secrecy, rule-bending, shirking of due process and committee bullying that rightly has become the subject of opposition ire in recent years. I would also like to see constraints put on lobbying, but done in a such a way that political benefits cannot be given to companies (see # 7 above) and regions of the country (like Quebec) with the goal to eliminate government influence from economic issues eventually.