Quote of the day – Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre

There is a lot wrong with the Ontario Liberal government’s proposed Ontario Basic Income Pilot program. Apart from the fact it will not encourage participants to seek improved employment opportunities (they will be penalized by forfeiting 50% of any employment earnings), I have to wonder how many more bureaucrats and consultants will be added to the civil service ranks, and just how much this program will cost Ontario tax payers.

The real concern that should be emphasized is it will likely have the opposite effect of what it’s supposed to achieve. As outlined by Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, the net effect could see participants incomes actually reduced:

“The basic income program will result in an additional 50 cents of lost transfer income for every dollar earned. This could lead to a total reduction of more than a dollar for each additional dollar earned. A basic income—when combined with personal taxes and other transfer programs—could have the perverse effect of actually reducing the total income of some recipients if they try to improve their situation by earning more employment income.”

Source: Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, The Fraser Institute, May 16, 2017

The Hypocrisy File – Meddling in other country’s affairs

Most of us our aware of the headlines and the outrage on display (mostly from the Democrats) regarding the alleged Russian interference in the recent US presidential election:

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

Source: The New York Times, March 1, 2017

And then we have this:

Barack Obama has made a last-minute intervention in the French presidential election in support of Emmanuel Macron, saying “the success of France matters to the entire world”.

Macron, a centrist, faces Marine Le Pen of the far-right Front National in a runoff vote on Sunday. Polls put him 20 points ahead.

The former US president said he had chosen to declare his support, in a video tweeted by Macron on Thursday afternoon, because of the importance of the election.

Source: The Guardian, May 4th, 2017

The depths of the Obama-era intervention in other country’s domestic affairs has certainly not been limited to just foreign elections. Tensions are increasing in a number of countries in Europe:

House Judiciary Chair, Republican Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is leading a 15-member delegation on an urgent mission to Greece, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Italy as evidence mounts that Obama-era favoritism continues — to the detriment of citizens, local institutions, and regional stability.

Obama-era ambassadors have managed to stoke ethnic tension (especially in Macedonia and Bosnia), promoting political favorites carried over from the past — primarily socialists and members of the George Soros network (Albania, Greece, Macedonia) — while alienating officials who feel they know what’s best for their own country (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia).

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced last week the United States will no longer mandate that other countries adopt U.S. values.

Our embassies in the Balkans clearly haven’t gotten the memo.

Source: The Amercican Spectator, May 8, 2017

Quote of the day – Terence Corcoran

The high cost of energy, the housing bubble, and the unbearable congestion on our roads in the GTA are all explained in this insightful piece by Terence Corcoran.

I encourage you to read the whole thing, and when you’re done explain to me again why big government is such a good thing.

“Personal choice be damned. Market forces be damned. We, the all-powerful, all-seeing and all-knowing ministers and bureaucrats will dictate how much energy Ontarians will consume, what kind of energy and at what cost. The result is soaring prices and increasing dysfunction.Same with health care, where the government’s new budget deepens the state’s grip with a new partial pharmacare scheme and tries to grapple with wait lists and systemic structural problems.

Less appreciated is the degree to which the same planned chaos is likely responsible for Ontario’s escalating housing crisis. The role of green central planning in creating runaway house prices in the Toronto area was highlighted earlier this week in a new report from Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Research and Land Development.

In a nutshell, Toronto’s housing crisis is a function of a shortage of land upon which ground-based housing — single, detached, row house or townhouse — can be built. And the cause of the shortage: A monster of a green plan called the 2006 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a 32,000-square-kilometre sprawl of territory surrounding Toronto. Enacted by the Liberals under premier Dalton McGuinty, the growth plan’s objective was to force millions of Ontarians to live in low-rise and high-rise buildings rather than single-family units at ground level.”

Source: Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, April 28, 2017

Why am I supporting Maxime Bernier? In a word: freedom

Now that Kevin O’Leary has withdrawn from the CPC leadership contest and thrown his support behind Maxime Bernier we can expect to see a heightened level of scrutiny applied to the remaining candidates.

I’ve had an opportunity to get to know most of the leadership front-runners, and I’ve been involved in numerous political leadership contests over the years, so I wanted to offer my perspective on why I’ve chosen to support Maxime Bernier.

For me there are 3 important factors that influence how I vote for party leaders; policy positions, electability, and honesty. It’s very rare to find all 3 ingredients in a single candidate. I’m delighted to say that for me Maxime Bernier has scored highest on all 3 points.

Policy: It’s no secret that Bernier identifies himself as a libertarian. What I find refreshing is that he does so unapologetically. His critics like to refer to him as an “ideologue”, and to that I have to ask what is wrong with stating clearly what you believe and being true to your principles? Why has politics devolved to art of trying to guess what other people want to hear and then regurgitating it? Compromising your principles used to be frowned upon, but now it seems to be all the rage.

All of Bernier’s policies are extensions of his defence of individual freedom and respect for democracy. Smaller government. Lower taxes. Less red tape. Free speech. These are the principles I share, and the reason I’m a conservative.

Electability: It’s unfortunate, but it’s a reality in modern politics: policy often plays a minor role in whether or not a particular candidate is successful. The average voter either doesn’t care enough, or simply doesn’t have the time to research and understand the myriad of policy options presented before casting their vote. They often respond to more nebulous factors, such as regional or ethnic connections or physical appearance (isn’t Justin dreamy?) I can’t count how many times, while knocking on doors, I heard committed conservatives tell me “There’s something about Harper I don’t like. I think it’s his eyes”, or “Tim Hudak is just too slick”.

As I said, it’s unfortunate, but it’s reality.

Maxime Bernier, in my view, is very electable. The fact Maxime is very popular in Quebec is not surprising, but his high popularity in Alberta should tell us something. This guy is likeable, and therefore very electable.

Honesty: If I like the policies of a particular candidate but I can’t trust their word, there’s not much point supporting them.

Honesty is actually a sub-set of electability. The average voter will tell you the most important factor in choosing which individual candidate to support is honesty and integrity. They like a leader that is consistent, a “straight shooter”.

I’ve seen Maxime Bernier face some very difficult questions from a diverse range of interest groups, and I’ve never seen him weasel his way out of these situations. He was always respectful of the questions asked, and more importantly he was consistent with his answers and true to his principles. And each time, whether or not the questioner received the response they wanted, Maxime was respected for his honest answers.

In Maxime Bernier I strongly believe the Conservative Party of Canada has an opportunity to chose a leader that truly represents conservative values, and at the forefront of those values is freedom.

As Maxime Bernier said back in June, “I think we Conservatives are not credible when we talk about principles and then defend policies that squarely contradict these principles.”

And as I said back in June, “How refreshing.”

Quote of the day – Gerald Caplan

gerald-caplanGerald Caplan is a staunch Canadian socialist, yet he is unable to identify a single example of a “great socialist leader” throughout history who has delivered on the socialist utopian dream. You would think that at some point something would click – in spite of all the good intentions, the socialist system simply does not work. It not only doesn’t work, each and every time it is attempted it results in misery and suffering. Enough already.

Fidel Castro stands in a long line of great socialist leaders who betrayed socialism. The list pretty well includes all of them, from Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, to Mao Zedong and Chou En-lai, to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, to Mengistu in Ethiopia. In the name of the beloved masses, these revolutionaries became the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for genocide, famine, incalculable suffering, widespread torture and the deaths of tens of millions of workers for the crime of somehow displeasing their great leader.

Source: Gerald Caplan, The Globe and Mail, November 28, 2016

The passing of Fidel Castro – contrasting responses


The passing of long-time Cuban President Fidel Castro will no doubt spark renewed debate between proponents of socialism and capitalism. For those cynical Canadians that insist there’s no difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the not-so-subtle contrast in how the current Party Leaders responded to Castro’s death.

From Liberal Party Leader Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

– Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

From Conservative Party Leader Rona Ambrose:

“With the passing of Fidel Castro, my thoughts and prayers are with the people of Cuba who continue to endure his long and oppressive regime, even after his death. Under his rule, thousands were impoverished, thousands were imprisoned and executed, and free speech, thought and assembly were curtailed or banned, all to live up to his version of ‘socialism’.

“Canada and the Cuban people have had a long and warm friendship over many years. With today’s news, my hope is that a brighter day will be coming for the Cuban people, where they may live in freedom and where democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are enshrined.”

– Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose

Source: National Post, November 26, 2016



Quote of the day – Barbara Kay

Well, of course I would post this – I’m a straight, white male:

What viewers witnessed in microcosm in those 12 minutes is the despotism of the left exercising its tyranny over straight white males, the only group in Western culture upon which any and all collective slanders may be heaped with impunity. If directed at women (except for Christian pro-lifers), blacks, aboriginals, Muslims, or gays, some of the erroneous claims Adam and Scaachi adduced as settled truth would be deemed hate speech.

You can see the CBC segment Kay references here:

And you can read Barbara Kay’s full column here: Barbara Kay: Anti-male ignorance on parade at the CBC.

Source: Barbara Kay, November 13, 2016, The National Post.

Quote of the day – Bryan Moir

Bryan Moir has now attended 4 Liberal government “Electoral Reform Town Hall Meetings”, and provides an insightful report on how they’re being conducted and how they’re evolving.

He writes on FaceBook:

This “democratic reform” is simply an exercise in how to give the Liberals not just more power, but how to give them power for an indefinite period of time through the manipulation of the voting system.

Source: Bryan Moir, Facebook, September 26, 2016

Quote of the day – Terry Glavin

Terry Glavin offers some insight into the motives behind Justin Trudeau’s recent moves to cozy up to the Russians and Chinese governments:

It was owing to his Security Council ambition that Trudeau avoided touching on the UN’s total abdication of its first and foremost responsibility in the matter of Syria, which is to stop the continuing genocide (it’s high time we call the horror by its proper name) that has driven nearly six million Syrians out of their country in the first place. It was not “because we Canadians are always polite” that the subject didn’t even come up in Trudeau’s remarks.

When one’s greatest “world stage” ambition is a non-voting seat on the Security Council five years down the road, one would not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of the veto holders in Moscow or Beijing. We get it. But let’s at least be honest about all this, please.

Enough of the “Canada is back” slogans already. Enough of the “Canada is a modest country” boasts.

Please. Just stop.

Source: Terry Glavin, National Post, September 21, 2016

While I agree with Terry that Trudeau’s UN Security Council ambitions are likely playing a role here, let’s not forget that Trudeau has shown little appetite for tackling the root of the Syrian and Iraq crisis (other than providing parkas), and he admires China’s ‘basic dictatorship’.

No, there’s more behind this than just a seat on the UN Security Council.

Quote of the day – Michael Den Tandt

Michael Den Tandt does a nice job of reminding readers of the real Liberal Party record on “peacekeeping”, and puts the Harper record in perspective:

It was a Liberal government, that of Jean Chrétien, that exacerbated the Somalia debacle with its shoddy handling of the aftermath, and its wrong-headed disbanding of the Airborne Regiment. The same government presided over  the catastrophic failures of the Rwanda mission. It was also a Liberal government that launched the Afghan mission, both in its post-9/11 initial phase in 2002 and its more robust humanitarian and combat phase beginning in late 2005. Liberals enthusiastically backed the Afghan mission — until the day Stephen Harper took power in 2006, after which they began enthusiastically bashing it. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan knows this history well, having served with distinction in Afghanistan.

Source: Michael Den Tandt, National Post,  August 30, 2016