Volume 22, Number 2
Winter,
2001
Doug Burn, Editor
The Harris Legacy - By George Dance
The Harris Legacy – By John Shaw
Leader’s Report – Sam Apelbaum
Election Campaign Project Plan – By Jim McIntosh
Libertarianism and Canada's Claim to Moral Superiority - excerpt from a Speech by Prof Bruce Freed
FINTRAC – A Danger To Us All - Robert Shapton
Get Involved - By Mary Lou Gutscher
Thank The CRTC for Internet Screw Ups - An Open Letter By John Shaw
The Harris Legacy - By George Dance
If true, these claims have enormous significance
for libertarians.
Libertarianism is an ideology, is definitely not
centrist, and sounds much like the CSR platform.
If Harris could win with a non-centrist, ideological alternative of
smaller government, then Libertarians can do the same, now.
So let's investigate their truth.
CSR had an ideological base, a Reaganist one of
smaller, less intrusive government. That
Harris held firmly for its centerpiece - a 30% tax cut and a balanced budget -
against all opposition, including mass civil disobedience and widespread
violence, is the main reason for seeing him as an ideologue. Yet, first, he cut the provincial income tax only as a
percentage of federal tax: that left Paul Martin hiking the provincial tax take,
ensuring that it stayed high. Second,
all his economy measures, from Bill 22 to the forced Toronto and Chatham-Kent
amalgamations, resulted in larger units of government, greater provincial
control, and ultimate concentration of power in his own office.
The CSR had one other success: energy was
privatized. But almost all other
initiatives - from privatizing the LCBO, to a school choice tax credit - have
come to nothing. On balance, Harris
was no ideologue. Yet he apparently
won as one. Why?
The Tories championed the tax cut, because they
believed it would be a centrist issue: Sooner or later, the political centre
would change - as it had in the U.S., with Reagan's election - and then Harris
would win. Rae's fluke 1990 win,
and the huge spending increases that followed, speeded things up but changed
nothing. Harris won not by
challenging the centre, but by staking out his own position and waiting for the
centre to come to him.
Provincial spending is about as high now as
it was under Rae in 1995.
Significantly, provincial spending is about as high
now as it was under Rae in 1995. Yet
now (judging by the Liberal lead in the polls) that spending level is seen as
too low. The centre has shifted
again.
Which leads one to question the Harris Legacy's
permanence. Harris' successor
will be under enormous pressure to increase spending (with an election due in
one year tops); either the balanced budget goes, or the tax cuts go (probably by
stealth, through raising other taxes).
Nor does the Taxpayers Protection Act afford any real protection: as an
act of the Legislature, it can be repealed by simple majority vote.
(As can energy privatization, of course.)
Was Harris an ideologue? Did he win as a non-centrist? And has he permanently changed Ontario politics? No, no, and probably not.
The
Harris Legacy – By John
Shaw
Mike
Harris was sworn in on June 26, 1995 as the premier of the province of Ontario
with great hope. Hope the new
government would live up to written promises - the Common Sense Revolution - and
that the huge growth in the size, expenditures, and role of government would be
reversed. In the words of a press
release from the government:
"The Common Sense Revolution, a plan to cut
taxes to create jobs, require able bodied welfare recipients to work for
benefits, to balance the budget, reduce the size of government and restore
prosperity and growth to Ontario."
Tax cuts? To quote the 1996 budget highlights we
see the provincial income tax rate will be cut by 30.2% over the next 3 years.
Everyone thinks taxes go down too - but wait the second item on the
budget summary is fine print called the "Fair Share Health Care Levy".
A quick calculation shows that for most people this new tax claws back
the tax rate reduction and they end up paying only about 1% less overall in tax.
Then next comes 11 items, which are all new spending or special interest
exemptions like film development credits. The writing was on the wall even the
first year. The Interim 95-96
budget predicted $56.9 billion in spending and revenue of $47.8 billion.
The most recent published figures (Feb 2001) indicate $62.5 billion in
spending and revenue of $64.2 billion.
Only in the newspeak of government is an increased
tax load of $16.4 billion on the province considered success of "a plan to
cut taxes" and an increase in expenses of $5.6 billion considered success
in a plan to "reduce the size of government ". The results are even worse when you consider there was a
large reduction in the unemployment rate in this period, which should have
resulted in a large reduction in spending even with constant spending (whoops -
should call that investment).
Are there less able-bodied people on welfare?
The latest estimates put spending on community and social services at
$7.6 billion as compared to $8.6 billion in 1996 budget.
Perhaps a very minimal reduction there - of course when you start with
one out of eight people in the province drawing assistance it is not difficult
to cut. For reference the figure is
almost the same as is spent directly on public school education - $8.1 billion.
In summary the Tories were a total failure in
living up to their economic promise. What
about the moral promise of a reduction in the role of government?
“Smart Growth” – a theft of private property on a massive scale.
Their latest initiative is "smart growth"
and the Oak Ridges Moraine - a theft of private property on a massive scale.
Was there exemption for the big guys - you bet.
New programs include laws that permit seizure of
property without court order or having to return property if the people happen
to be innocent (The "Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful
Activities"). In fact they proposed to even seize assets that
"may" be used unlawfully. Then there is the drive clean program that
cost motorists hundreds of millions per year, but has no measurable effect on
air quality.
Have the bloated arrogant monopolies like Ontario
Hydro and the LCBO been sold off - no. What
is the premier’s opinion on private enterprise - well it is best summed up by
his news release on the human genome program. "The spin-offs of a worldwide
effort such as the human genome project should not be the property of a handful
of people or companies," said Harris. In another release "Seven
innovative strict discipline demonstration projects for expelled students will
be up and running by September 2001." These are make-work programs to
handle the result of students ejected from school for the most trivial offences.
Worst of all from the perspective of a
libertarian was the lost opportunity.
The list is long, the record a disaster. Worst of all from the perspective of a libertarian was the lost opportunity. Many people think that taxes are down, many people think red tape and silly programs have been cut. The record is very different, very sad. And what of the future under the Tories - well Ernie Eves plans to come in with a "move to the left". Ignoring the ambiguity of the phrase you can guess we will not have progress of the libertarian idea under such a group.
Leader’s Report
– Sam Apelbaum
The
erosion of individual liberty in Canada continues. On top of burdensome taxes,
regulations and controls, we now have to contend with extraordinary police
powers and networks of informers established by government decree.
Laws to extend government surveillance powers had
already been prepared before the terrorist massacre of September 11 in New York
City, which is being used as pretext for even greater intrusion into our daily
lives.
Modern politicians often proclaim themselves to be
pragmatists. For them, fundamental principles about government are unimportant.
To get elected and hold on to power, they will simply accept prevailing beliefs
about what governments should or should not be doing. It is dangerous to have
such people posing as political leaders when socialism is the prevailing western
ideology.
The world of the future will not be filled with
endless possibilities unless there is recognition of, respect for, and
protection of individual liberty.
Most who read this newsletter value individual
liberty. We need more of you to become active and do something to help change
the course of future events. Persuading people to adopt libertarian views about
strictly limited government is the only way to keep governments under control
and safeguard individual freedom. No number of constitutional safeguards, court
challenges or democratic elections can substitute for a population that values
liberty.
We have begun preparation for the next Ontario
election, which will probably occur in the spring of 2003. We are not foolish
enough to think Ontario is ready for a libertarian renaissance, which will
result in us forming the government. However, elections do afford the
opportunity to present the libertarian vision to a large number of people who
would otherwise pay no attention to political parties and know nothing about us.
We offer fresh and exciting ideas for them to consider.
Our primary election goal will be to grow the
party by attracting new people.
In the lead up to the election, I will be contacting as many of you as I can to ask for your assistance. Consider being a candidate. Some have already made the commitment. Our primary election goal will be to grow the party by attracting new people. A few more committed and enthusiastic people, both before and after the election, will make a great difference. If you find the thought of running in an election campaign daunting, I encourage you to take up the challenge for the sake of your personal growth as well as the opportunity to contribute to an important cause. I have yet to find any candidate from past elections who has regretted the experience.
Election
Campaign Project Plan – By Jim McIntosh
The
following are some of the plans we have been making for the next provincial
election. We expect it will be in
the spring of 2003, which is not as far away as it seems.
You may recall from the previous article on this subject, our objectives
are to add 50 new names to our members and donors list, and to add five
libertarian activists to our executive.
Strategy
1.
In order to get 50 members and supporters, we will
need to add 200 "Inquiries" to our list during the election.
2.
Assuming the average candidate can generate 10
enquiries during the election campaign, we will need at least 20 active
candidates.
3.
Getting our name and ideas in the press should
produce enquiries as well.
4.
Provide a good Inquiry Package before and during
the election
5.
Candidates and/or executive will follow up with
each Inquiry after the election.
Tactics
1.
Prepare Libertarian Platform document - 10-20 pages
covering a wide variety of issues, printed on quality paper, heavy cover,
including graphics, for the Media and for Inquiry Package. Include tear-out membership/donor form. (Election Platform is
a subset of this document.)
2.
Prepare Issue Papers for most of the Platform
"Planks" with details and statistics.
3.
Encourage Candidates to attend all-candidates
meetings (Party to provide several sample speeches).
Get interested attendees to fill in Info Request form. ("Would you
like more information?")
4.
Get help (nearby Libertarian) for every potential
candidate - no one should work alone.
5.
Candidates (and volunteers) should speak to
individual voters and hand out pamphlets (door to door, bus stops, etc.)
6.
Have pictures and biographies for all candidates
ready for the media (and on our web site).
7.
Generate press releases and provide photo-ops to
get media coverage.
8.
Rent an office for the Election Campaign (January
to June?).
9.
Hold monthly Open Houses during the election run-up
period.
10.
Hold Open Houses every week during the election.
11.
HQ to prepare 2-3 sample election pamphlets and
print customized pamphlets for candidates.
Pamphlets should have an Information Request form.
We need help. There are a lot of activities that require volunteers. If you have suggestions, let us know. But more important, if you can help us with one or more of these activities give us a call or drop us a note.
Libertarianism and Canada's Claim to Moral Superiority - Excerpts from a presentation to the Party’s AGM by Bruce Freed, Professor of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario
The criticism (of capitalism and free market
globalism) in Canada takes the form of moral criticism. America is criticized as
being aggressively imperialist and indifferent to the needs of the less
privileged. And the counter claim is that Canada, with its peacekeepers and
socialized medicine, is a kinder, gentler society. The claim, in short, is that
Canada is morally superior.
As I understand it, the history of this claim to
moral superiority is something like this: Ever since loyalists who wanted no
truck with the new American democracy settled Canada, Canadians have needed to
feel they were better than Americans. But they're obviously not better as a
military or economic power or in the strength of their cultural influence. So
how can Canada distinguish itself from America? The answer is that it can be
nicer. It can be a more just society. This is Canada's claim to moral
superiority and it has sustained Canadian political debate for as long as Canada
has existed.
It is also what explains the popularity of Canada's
socialist policies. A knockdown argument against a policy, in the game of
politics as played by the Canadian left, is that it would make Canada more like
America.
But a libertarian should be able to recognize this
claim to moral superiority as fraudulent.
[Moral superiority] a political weapon used
by socialists at every turn.
Libertarians should oppose the exploitation of
Anti-American feelings in Canadian politics. They should do this because the
policies that are being dismissed as too American are just the policies
libertarians should espouse. This need to feel morally superior to America is a
political weapon used by socialists at every turn.
Is Canada a more caring country than America? A
strong case can be made that the talk about being kinder and more caring is a
scam. Canada unabashedly relies on the U.S. for its national defense - for its
sovereignty, in the only real sense in which it is threatened.
Now it seems to me that a libertarian should hold
that Canada should contribute adequately to its own national defense. That is
one of the legitimate functions of government. And that doing this should take
priority over providing health care, especially when the health care can be
provided by the private sector.
(The full text of Professor Freed’s presentation can be found at www.libertarian.on.ca)
FINTRAC
– A Danger To Us All - By Robert Shapton
IMPORTANT WARNING TO CANADIANS - issued Nov/ 8,
2001
This alert is specifically intended ONLY for the
following:
·
People who have accounts with banks, trust
companies, or credit unions
·
People who deal with real estate agents or brokers
·
People who deal with lawyers
·
Investors
·
Canadian travelers outside of Canada
·
Foreign visitors to Canada
·
People who deal with life insurance companies
·
People who deal with accountants
·
People who attend casinos
·
People who have any financial dealings with other
Canadians
All others are not immediately affected by this
warning and need not read any further.
November 8, 2001 marks the beginning of a new era
of MANDATORY SURVEILLANCE of ALL of the people listed above. All PRINCIPALS and
EMPLOYEES of financial institutions, real estate firms, law firms, investment counseling
firms and brokerages, travel agencies, life insurance companies, accounting
firms, and casinos, are now conscripted into a new army of informants and MUST
report any "suspicious" behaviour to a new Canadian Government agency
called FINTRAC (The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada). In
addition, ANY CITIZEN who merely suspects you may be engaged in any UNUSUAL
financial dealings is requested to report their suspicions.
These informants may or may not warn you in advance
of their suspicions, but they are PROHIBITED from advising you AFTER they have
reported your suspicious behaviour to the authorities. And the penalties for NOT
reporting their suspicions are SEVERE. For example:
"Failure to report suspicious transaction -
conviction of this could lead to up to five years imprisonment, to a fine of
$2,000,000 or both.
In order to ensure compliance with these new laws,
the above-mentioned informants MUST implement a "COMPLIANCE REGIME" in
their businesses. Detailed records must be retained. Again, the penalties for
non- compliance are SEVERE including five years imprisonment and a fine of up to
$500,000 for failure to retain records.
Unusual Behaviour –“Client is reluctant
to discuss his or her financial affairs”
Guidelines have been published that describe the
"indicators" of "suspicious transactions" or
"unusual behaviour" that should act as an alert to employees of
the informing firms. The list for "assessing suspicion" is VERY long,
but includes for example (quoted from FINTRAC regulatory guidelines):
"Client attempts to develop close rapport with
staff."
"Client is nervous...”
"... multiple transactions on the same
day..."
"Frequent requests for traveler's cheques,
foreign currency drafts or other negotiable instruments."
"Accumulation of large balances, inconsistent
with the known turnover of the client's business..."
"Client frequently uses many deposit locations
outside of the home branch location."
"Client appears to be living beyond his or her
means."
"Client's home or business telephone number
has been disconnected...”
"Client refuses to discuss the business
purpose of the transaction."
"Client is reluctant to discuss his or her
financial affairs...”
"Client shows uncommon curiosity about
internal systems, controls and policies."
And regrettably, please be aware that just by
reading this warning you are engaging in SUSPICIOUS behaviour, as the guidelines
state that employee/informants should be alerted if:
"Client has unusual knowledge of the law in
relation to suspicious transaction reporting."
Please be aware that there is no discernable
penalty for over-zealously, or even maliciously, monitoring and informing about
your activities, whereas there are VERY severe penalties for FAILING to do so.
This may very well lead to a situation where many innocuous activities will be
reported by employees who are worried about their liabilities, and not at all
concerned about the harm done to innocents.
You've been warned! The next time you feel inclined to smile and chat pleasantly with that bank teller, or ask too many questions of that lawyer or accountant perhaps you should think again.
Treasurer's Report -
Jim McIntosh
As of October 31, 2001 total donations and other
income was $6,958.50 and expenses were $9,130.62, for an operating deficit of
$2,172.32, year to date.
It is not unusual to run a deficit until the
year-end donations arrive. I will
publish a full statement in the next issue.
Bulletin is one of our significant expenses.
It costs about one dollar per copy to mail (including postage) or about
$1,800 per year. Our new green
masthead and heavier paper stock increased the price per copy by about three
cents.
Our bank balance at October 31 was $10,536.34.
We have not set a budget for the election campaign yet, but if we rent an
office in an accessible location for six months or so, and publish a quality
election platform for the media and enquiries, we are going to need more than
this. We need your financial
assistance to build a war chest.
I would be remiss if I didn't remind you about the 75 per cent income tax credit you can get for donations up to $300. In other words, send us $300 before December 31, and I will send you an official receipt, which will allow you (or your spouse) to claim a tax credit of $225 on your income tax return.
Get Involved
- By Mary Lou Gutscher
It seems like there's never a week without
something going on that might be of interest to libertarians. If you have
Internet access, I highly recommend that you check out these contacts, and have
your name added to their e-mail lists, if the description below intrigues you.
You can always "un-subscribe" if it becomes too much for you later.
OLP
News and Announcements - sign up for
the e-mail list (button on the left side of the page). Excellent updates on
events in Ontario.
Film nights in Toronto - contact
MLGutscher@free-market.net
The Henry Hazlitt Foundation's Free
Market Net - news, views, contacts, prizes, promotions, and special interest
news groups - designed especially for libertarians and free-marketers. Award
winning web site and great member services.
International Society
for Individual Liberty (ISIL) - sign up for their e-bulletin. Request
a membership package. Supports publishing and educational projects around the
world. Sponsors a World Libertarian Conference every year with outstanding
world-class speakers (2000 was in London, Ontario. Next July's conference will
be Puerto Vallarta, Mexico). Write for an information package, and sign up for
the e-bulletin.
Advocates for
Self-Government - current project "Discover Liberty" - introducing
500,000 North Americans to the ideas of liberty by June 2002.
University
of Toronto Objectivist Club - 5 or 6 good speakers and events every year.
Small Government is Beautiful - current project is
to end State Income Tax in Massachusetts. It has already gathered and verified
enough signatures to get it on the ballot next year. Go to carlahowell.org
and subscribe to the Small Government News. The best example I've seen of great
fund-raising and political action. Michael Cloud and Carla Howell are the team
leaders making it all happen.
Von Mises Institute - features daily articles from various scholars and business people. It's good way to stay sane in the midst of the daily news, and to improve your knowledge of Austrian economics a little bite at a time.
As always you can go to the OLP's links page for a wider list - on an international basis.
Thank
The CRTC for Internet Screw Ups - An Open Letter - John Shaw
Being a long suffering customer of Rogers Wave and
then @home and now @rogers I guess I read with amusement the soft words like
"false start" and "mixed results" in the National Post - on
the forced transition of some services. In
fact what should have been a simple transition became a major problem for many
people - and will be for weeks for some.
Now the many problems that Rogers has with
technical execution are well known -
but my intent here is to put the blame squarely on the root cause - the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission) and
the federal government that forces monopoly situations on the public.
We suffer *because* of their ‘help’
If I had a choice I would have left Rogers a long
time ago – Rogers would have had to improve or it would not be in business as
many of their customers feel this way - that is how businesses should constantly
improve themselves. Unfortunately
the CRTC and the government forces a monopoly on us - we suffer because of their
'help'.
The federal government now claims high-speed
Internet connections are so important that they are spending millions to
subsidize it for rural people and the courts are now ordering mandated child
support to include provisions for it. In
the U.S. too governments are so worried about monopolies they try to break up
very effective companies like Microsoft and they then interfere with the quick
rescue of Excite (which is part of why Rogers got caught in this mess) – yet
they themselves still see fit to force monopolies on us.
The article makes it sound like there is
competition - but hey it's just another government-enforced monopoly too
(I already tried that route - thumbs down on Sympatico too).
We would be so much farther ahead if the government would just let the best ISP provider get our business by our free choice.