Blog: Coal Mine Health And Safety Act

Libertas Post recently interviewed Paul McKeever , leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario (FPO). Founded in the 1980s and based in London, ON, it’s unlikely the FPO is going to take power any time soon. In the 2007 provincial election, the party ran 15 candidates and garnered 3,003 votes (0.1 percent percent of total ballots cast, according to Elections Ontario).

Despite their fringe status, the FPO does offer some intriguing policy prescriptions, from lower taxes and legal marijuana to getting government out of the marriage business and expanding choice in education and healthcare.

Fourty-four years-old, McKeever is married with two children and works as a employment lawyer in Oshawa, ON when not attending to party business. He favours reason, rationality and consent. Just don’t call him a libertarian.

How did you get involved with the Freedom Party of Ontario?

I was referred to the Freedom Party by a professor at the University of Western Ontario [in London, Ontario]. I was looking for something that other parties [couldn’t offer]. I got on the [FPO] mailing list ... 1995 was the first year I got really active with the party. I helped distribute flyers for then party leader Lloyd Walker. After that I was involved in [the 1999 provincial election] because the party was looking for candidates. I first ran in Toronto Centre-Rosedale, against [Liberal candidate] George Smitherman and former Toronto mayor [John Sewell]. Right after that, the party started using me as a spokeperson so I started making regular appearances on Michael Coren and Rhonda London’s [television shows]. Then in 2002, Lloyd Walker stepped down as party leader and I was appointed the new guy with the job.

Are you a disullusioned Tory?

[For the 1995 provincial election] I was living north of London in a riding that didn’t have a FPO candidate. I got pretty excited by the Common Sense Revolution (the Ontario Progressive Conservative’s campaign platform, ed. note) at the time because it was promising a lot of things that were affecting people like me. I was doing long trips to home in Oshawa and I was faced with photo radar. So getting rid of that looked like a good thing to me. It was nothing but a tax grab.

I was actually working in a restaurant at the time, washing dishes. The manager of the restaurant said ‘Guess who’s here?’ It was [Mike Harris] the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. I asked my boss, ‘Do you mind if I take five minutes and sit with him?’ So I walked out to the dining area and said, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Harris, do you mind if I talk to you for a minute?’ I said, ‘Here’s my problem. I’ve got a Masters’ degree, a year of a PhD and I’m two years into a law degree and here I am working in a restaurant in London. And this is the first job I’ve found in a year-and-a-half. I’m out of school in another year with a law degree. Why should I stay in this province?’ At the time, things were rather depressed [in Ontario] and the deficit was running high.

I had just come out of a PhD program prior to a law degree and all the white males of able body were being told, ‘Sorry there’s no jobs.’ … it was a time in which affirmative action was in full throttle. I asked Harris, ‘What about photo radar?’ He said ‘Scrap it.’ I said, ‘What about affirmative action?’ He said, ‘Scrap that.’ Then he says the PCs were going to cut taxes by a third which at the time, for anyone going into government sounded revolutionary. I thought, ‘If you’re actually going to do that you got my vote.’ … I liked that Harris was at least undoing the damage done by the NDP, but that’s all he was doing. He wasn’t making it better.

At the same time I was involved in Freedom Party provincially back in ’97, I was interested in the Reform Party federally—not because of any of their social programs which I recoil from—but they had a very strong policy with respect to obeying the division of constitutional legislative powers. They were opposed to the federal government using what is called the federal spending power. The federal spending power is how the federal government manages to spend federal money on provincial things like education, heathcare and welfare. So I supported Reform for that reason, but then they morphed into an alliance with some Conservatives called the Canadian Alliance led by a fellow (Stockwell Day, ed. note) who thought dinosaurs coexisted with humans and … everything went off the rails.

That was around 2002 when the Freedom Party said, ‘Hey Paul we want you to be the next leader.’ I said if we’re going to do that, then the party has to change. We’re not going to be advocating philosophy, we’re going to be promoting a handful of policies we think the public needs. So we became much more practical and electable rather than sort of being a libertarian philosophy club.

My problem with the [federal] Conservatives is that they are … a party that believes freedom is not the be-all and end-all. Freedom has to be ‘exercised well’, quote unquote, so that means, according to Stephen Harper, one must only be permitted to make the right decisions. Government must punish the wrong decisions … [Harper] says he’s guided by faith … this is coming across now in various panderings to the backbone of his support … people who give him money, people who drive the signs into the ground come election time. Those folks are the social conservatives. They want abortion banned, and if they can’t get that they want to make it as difficult as possible [to get an abortion]. So we see these peripheral measures … it’s reflected in foreign aid, where the Conservatives are not going to fund abortion.

Now, I don’t think [government] should be funding abortions at all. But my point is, clearly there’s a religious consideration being made … it’s being reflected in things like the gay marriage motion that was held in 2006 … they tried to put it back on the agenda. That didn’t work so it left the social conservatives looking for somebody to oppress and that left open the war on drugs. So the government decided in 2007 to plunge ahead with their anti-drug strategy.

I don’t know how religious Harper is personally, whether he is as driven as some of his social conservative supporters, but he’s certainly in bed with them.

I put out a two-part movie about [recently convicted marijuana seed seller, social activist and former Freedom Party stalwart, Marc Emery] called The Principle of Pot. The entire part one is Marc Emery advocating individual freedom but nowhere advocating marijuana. This was to demonstrate to conservatives who like to say he’s nothing but a drug pusher, that he has a broader agenda, and it’s individual freedom.

My film covered three main things he did with the Freedom Party. That was, the Sunday shopping issue, for which he went to jail for [a few] days and the strike by London city garbage workers. The Freedom Party rented a truck and went around and collected garbage. On April 21, I put out part two. That was all of Marc Emery’s cannabis-related advocacy. Marc is actually an anarchist who had been advocating for a government that defends every individual’s life, liberty and property ... but when he left [the FPO] he became just anti-government. He took the libertarian approach.

Libertarians are anti-government. The Freedom Party is pro-using government to defend life, liberty and property. So we have a very different orientation.

Government’s role is to make sure nobody is denied their life, liberty or their property without their consent. For the Freedom Party, consent is the be-all and end-all. If consent is present, government should be absent … that is our guiding philosophy in terms of politics.

In terms of epistemology, we’re advocates of reason. In terms of ethics we’re advocates of rational egoism. In terms of politics, we’re advocates of consent.

Is this an Ayn Rand influence?

Definitely. I’m an Objectivist through and through.

Have you always been an Objectivist?

No … in 1997, when I first opened my law practise I wanted to be more involved.

Which city did you open that in?

Oshawa, ON. At the time I was interested in two things: civil litigation and constitutional law which had been one of my stronger suits in law school. My interest was in Section One of the constitution. This is the section that allows the courts to say ‘Yes, you have this right or this freedom but if we abridge it by this much, that’s in keeping with a free and democratic society.’ I said to myself, ‘What is a free society? What is a democratic society?’ I discovered through legal research that the court had never defined any of those terms. Section One is largely baseless, it’s whimsical. There’s no way you can say it’s being applied consistently in a free and democratic society because the courts never defined [freedom and democracy]. It’s one of those, well ‘You’ll know it when you see it situations’. So I wasn’t satisfied with ‘You know when you see it’. I said, ‘What is freedom? What is democracy?’ That started a 13 year self-study into philosophy and politics that ultimately brought me into Objectivism because Objectivism, unlike any other philosophy actually says, ‘If you see it, that’s evidence it exists.’

[The Freedom Party platform consists of] pretty mainstream things. We don’t sit around like the libertarians and talk about seat-belt laws and nonsense like that. What are the big problems in Ontario? The problems are electricity, healthcare, education. For the most part, those are the big three.

You hear sometimes right-wingers or libertarians saying ‘Privatize it!’ We’re not like that. We say people should have a choice … let them pay directly whoever they want [for healthcare] … if they want to remain on OHIP (the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, ed. note) where it’s rationed healthcare … if they want to stay with that system they can do so. If instead they would like to pay a private insurer to buy whatever plan is available with private insurance they can do that. If you don’t want insurance at all because you’re young and happy and got lots of money, then fine, pay as you go.

So we give choice, instead of ramming ideology down anyone’s throat … maybe we’ll bring in parallel private [healthcare]. Parallel private means you still pay for the public system but if you have a lot of money, you can also buy your own healthcare.

In our platform, I will be proposing … that every individual in Ontario get a monthly report card or bill that shows how much money they paid for healthcare … then you will also have an entry on the cost of the healthcare you consumed this month.

I’m toying with also showing people what private healthcare or other healthcare arrangements would cost their family or them individually to purchase it. [I would use] examples from Germany or the United States. Most of the world gives you a choice. It’s only Canada, North Korea and Cuba that prohibit private insurance.

I think that’s the first step—educate the public. Empower them with the knowledge that they need. At that point we can start talking about what is the proper government response to that knowledge. It’s the same thing with education. The right response is to first establish for parents, what is the quality of the education? Have a report card that says if their child is failing or not. The next part on the report card should say, ‘Here’s what we’re doing about it.’

My emphasis in the next election will be on empowering parents, taxpayers and patients. Because until we can show them the problems, they’re not going to embrace any form of change. Change is a scary thing. People don’t like change—they always think it will mean something worse.

Do you have any role models for the kind of politics you’re advocating?

It’s funny. We are actually alone in this. I don’t think there’s ever been a pro-reason, pro-capitalism party [in Ontario]. There’s been libertarians since the early 1970s but those people are anti-government. They are not pro-reason.

What’s your position on gay marriage?

Get [government out of] the marriage business … there’s no real reason why anyone’s marriage needs to be recognized whether they’re gay, straight, bi-sexual, you name it. All that really needs to be done is for government to make sure that children are protected.

Does that mean you are in favour of civil unions for gay couples?

I’m in favour of people getting married in whatever way they want to get married, to whomever they want to marry and I’m in favour of the government not even getting involved in the recognition business. They don’t need to be there … there is no need for the federal government to recognize marriage

I assume you’re opposed to the federal gun registry?

Oh, yes.

Would you like to see a more American-style approach to guns in Canada?

I wouldn’t say ‘American style’. Police are the people who should be protecting us, defending our life, liberty and property. However, in a country as large as Canada, police can’t always arrive on time. If you’ve got a farm 30 minutes away from the police station and the guys are crawling up on the house right now ready to steal from you, I think it’s criminal to say you have to take it. [Gun ownership] should not be something you are punished for, you simply own a tool. That’s all what firearms are, a tool … if you fire a gun and kill someone there needs to be investigation to see if it was self-defence. Do I want kids walking around with a pistol in their pants, no way?

Rand Paul recently got in hot water talking about the public accomodations clause in the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. He implied that people who run private businesses should be allowed to discriminate in terms of who they serve. What’s your take?

I don’t have an opinion on the ’64 Civil Rights Act.

I meant the larger issue: if you run a restaurant, hotel or store, should you be able to say ‘I’m not going to serve you because I don’t like your hair or because I don’t serve gay people’ or something like that?

In my view, it’s utterly immoral [to do that]… You have to be careful when making blanket statements about human rights, however—for the most part, they aren’t used. When was the last time anybody said, ‘We don’t serve blacks here’ or whatever. To my mind it’s not a priority.

What’s your take on the Tea Party movement in the U.S.?

Neutral. It will be a short-term shot in the arm against the Democrats, but there’s no guiding philosophy. It’s like a libertarian movement. In many ways it’s just anti-government and that’s no way to achieve anything at all.

Do you feel frustrated working in the fringes of electoral politics?

I never feel like I’m on the fringes. Frankly I feel like I’m dictating policy from time to time. A week before the HST went into play on July 1, I put out a press release that said, ‘Look, [Ontario Liberal premier Dalton] McGuinty said when he came in in 2003 that a Liberal government would not raise taxes one penny. And then within a year, he imposed a $2.9 billion a year health premium. Then he told us a year ago that the HST will be revenue neutral—it won’t increase government revenues. Then a few weeks ago he says actually it will, by about $3 billion … you didn’t keep your promise in 2003, you’re now bringing in $2.9 billion from that. You told us the HST would be revenue neutral. So why not cancel the health premium? Then the HST will in fact be revenue neutral.’

I’m not anti-HST. I’m just anti-HST being revenue positive. If we get rid of the health premium, that gets rid of a horrible tax on production and allows the HST to be revenue netrual. It’s the perfect policy solution for McGuinty.

The Freedom Party’s job as a sort of third party is to make sure that people realize that the people in the number two spot—the PC’s—are every bit as horrible as the Liberals. In fact, in my personal opinion, they are worse, more irrational and more likely to interfere with personal decision making. It’s an utter myth that Conservatives are conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. They are spending like drunken sailors.

TORONTO - Eco fees may be just the beginning.

The Dalton McGuinty government has encouraged its ministries to pursue new fees to stay on budget and to pay for additional programs, according to a 2010-11 Results-Based Planning document obtained by QMI Agency.

"Non-tax revenues (NTRs) offer an opportunity to ensure fiscal neutrality of ministry expenditure proposals," the document says. "If applicable, ministries are encouraged to propose new revenue streams to offset increased expenditures if there are no large-scale investments required, or to increase existing fees to achieve full cost recovery."

The "Other Revenue Technical Guide" reminds ministry budget crunchers that they have "an opportunity to make requests for establishing new revenue streams and/or significant redesigns to existing fees which could be considered if they assist ministries in living within their current multi-year minuted allocation."

Ministries were also told the public should be charged a "premium" for using electronic kiosks instead of traditional over-the-counter service, even though it would appear to reduce the need for costly staff.

"Particular electronic service delivery channels, such as kiosks, are considered a premium service for which an additional amount is charged to acknowledge the cost of this service above the normal delivery standard," a guide says. "This may result in the total fee charged being higher than the fee to deliver the same service over the counter."

The advice is contained in budget and revenue planning documents from the Treasury Board of Ontario that guide ministries in managing their books during a time of substantial deficits.

Finn Poschmann, of the C.D. Howe Institute, who co-authored a report arguing the Ontario Green Energy fee that took effect this spring is likely an indirect tax, said governments' post-stimulus spending will be looking at unobtrusive and uncontroversial ways to raise resources outside the traditional tax increase.

"You better believe they're looking at fees in different jurisdictions -- health fees and all kinds of things, environmental fees -- just ways to raise money to do their business," Poschmann said. "You've got to do it constitutional, legally, otherwise voters lose control over their governments."

The revenue raised through the new eco fee, added to thousands of consumer products on July 1, does not go to the provincial treasury but could offset costs that might otherwise have been spent by some level of government.

PC Leader Tim Hudak continued to push the McGuinty government to drop its eco fees Friday.

"The PC caucus has documented the marching orders that Minister (John) Gerretsen gave Stewardship Ontario to come up with this eco-tax grab on 9,000 different items," Hudak said.

The fees, which cover the cost of recycling and treating hazardous and special municipal waste, has drawn criticism from some consumers and businesses who argue some are either inappropriate or too high.

Kate Jordan, a spokesman for the ministry of environment, said Gerretsen has told Stewardship Ontario to take quick action to resolve these issues and restore consumer confidence.

antonella.artuso@sunmedia.ca