The facts are clear when the political spin is replaced by reasoned evaluation. The truth is that Dalton McGuinty arbitrarily suspended and abrogated our most sacred civil liberties — our freedoms and privacy — without discussion, debate or public awareness. The premier then justified this abuse of power by asserting that we needed law and order instead.

Instead of a choosing a more controlled and less populated location that would not be such a powerful magnet for the few juvenile anarchists, Stephen Harper agreed to host the G20 in a location that he had to have known would draw the greatest opposition and most violent response, therefore justifying an outrageous expenditure of public dollars and creating an army of police equipped with a siege mentality.

Both the provincial and federal governments now attempt to shirk responsibility for their actions by shifting blame to one another and to the police, who were acting under political orders. McGuinty refuses to apologize or call for an independent public inquiry. Harper hides behind the provincial jurisdiction of policing, even though it was his government that contracted their services on behalf of all Canadians.

They both use the common theme that upholding law and order required usurping our civil liberties. Any elementary school student knows these are not mutually exclusive — in fact, they are wholly interdependent. As numerous failed dictatorships have proven, you cannot have law and order without civil liberties.

Can you imagine a society of law and order that does not respect the inherent civil liberties and freedom of mobility, association and assembly? What is law and order if you can be arrested and detained arbitrarily without reasonable and probable grounds? This is what happened on a large scale in Toronto. Stalin and Mao most assuredly would have agreed with McGuinty’s vision and views, that due process and evidentiary rules are optional. But law and order without civil liberties is the hallmark of despotism and tyranny, and are the stock in trade of injustice and evil.

Although there have been times of national crisis when civil liberties have been suspended, it has only ever occurred after a full and thoughtful debate — never in secrecy. It has happened when our country has been at war and our way of life under real threat. It has happened when civil unrest in Quebec led to bombings and the kidnapping and murder of public leaders; however, it was debated and voted upon with the public’s full knowledge of the War Measures Act.

The G20 has resulted in the largest mass arrest in our history of more than 1,000 Canadian citizens. But according to McGuinty, this startling fact does not justify or merit an inquiry. Over 700 of these people were detained, their freedom removed, and eventually released without charge, but this does not warrant public scrutiny either. The largest ever mobilization of Canadian police in our history does not even deserve an open public review. More than $1 billion spent and we are supposed to be accepting and grateful.

Freedom is secondary only to the very life we breathe, freedom is the most essential ingredient of humanity — to deprive one of his freedom is to suffocate our soul and nature. This must never be done arbitrary and only in times of great crisis.

McGuinty and Harper set the stage, created the environment and controlled the unfolding of these events, and together they have lowered the threshold of protecting our civil liberties. No longer are our freedoms and liberties only in peril during times of war or a direct threat upon our democratic institutions. They are now in peril every day we have political leaders such as this.

Randy Hillier, MPP
Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington

Original Article

I was astonished reading last weeks editorial after returning from Queens Park- at first I thought I had never left, and was reading the Toronto Star, not the Perth Courier.

The premise of your editorial regarding the proposed on-again/off-again sex education curriculum was very disappointing. Your conclusions imply that the only appropriate venue for sex education is in elementary schools, and the only other alternative is “in less than savoury places.” Furthermore, the editorial suggested the Premier should disregard the expressed will and concern of the people.

To begin, there are more than two avenues for learning. The failure to consider or to intentionally exclude the home, parents, and/or family members implies they are “the less than savoury places” to which you refer, and lessens the parent’s role in educating their children. Instead of promoting a greater dependence upon public education, the old Courier would have encouraged parents to be involved in their child’s education. A person’s edification is greatest when broad and expansive; a dependence solely upon public education ensures only, at its peak, diminished knowledge.

Secondly, we have a democracy that places an overarching obligation upon the government to act in accordance with the desires of the people and to implement policies that reflect their general will and values. Although McGuinty does not have a stellar record on this point, for the Courier to encourage the Premier to implement a policy disregarding these concerns is, by definition, a de facto support of despotism.

It is self evident that public education is not truly ‘public’ if people are excluded and prevented from having input in the curriculum. Although few would disagree with the need for sex education at an appropriate age, the thrust of the curriculum change was obscured with Orwellian language that generated significant doubt and left it open to any interpretation. Furthermore, I’m confident that the Premier’s extensive consultations fell far short of Lanark County and likely did not extend beyond the Queen’s Park academia.

The Liberal government has made a U-turn; now they should keep the brakes on until they have a curriculum that is reflective of our values and is written with clarity. I commend all the people who voiced their concerns to me and to the government over this issue; they proved that democracy does work. Democracy, like education, is far too important to be left in the hands of just politicians and bureaucrats- or newspaper editors.

Randy Hillier
MPP, Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington

In reviewing the 2010 Ontario Budget, a line from an old country music classic immediately comes to mind: “Another day older and deeper in debt”. Many readers will recognize the line made famous in the hit Sixteen Tons made popular by Tennessee Ernie Ford in the fifties. Originally written to symbolize the strength of the individual in the face of adversity, in Ontario it is representative of the economic realities of almost two terms of reckless government.

As Canada and her provinces emerge from the recession, in Ontario we look around to find that we fell further than our neighbors. Our 9.1% jobless rate is the highest of any Canadian province outside of Atlantic Canada. According to TD Economics, we lost 210,000 jobs during the recession, representing more job losses than every other province combined. We now have higher unemployment than Greece, and a lower standard of living than Michigan. Further, Ontario’s deficit is larger than every other provincial deficit combined.

Based on the Finance Minister’s breathless gloating over his accomplishments, I take it that he is proud of the monster Dalton McGuinty has created. Only in Dalton McGuinty’s mind could a $21 billion deficit be a good thing.

Budget 2010 confirms that the Premier will double Ontario’s debt by 2012-2013. In the first 140 years of its existence, Ontario accumulated a $148.7 billion debt, and this Premier will have just about doubled that debt in just two terms. Not only has his government taken Ontario to ‘have-not’ status, but in just one year our equalization payments from the ‘have’ provinces will triple from $347 million to $972 million.

I, for one, cannot see any improvement in Ontario over the last seven years which could account for this kind of spending.

Tim Hudak and the PC Caucus have set out clear ideas to take Ontario down a very different path. We have released 10 practical and affordable ideas to create jobs and grow our economy. These ideas, which are available to the public at www.10for2010.ca , will provide tax relief, cut red tape and control government spending.

Our ideas include reducing the payroll taxes that stand in the way of small businesses hiring new employees. They also include reducing the red tape burden, capping government spending, and reducing the land-transfer taxes that kill construction jobs and stand in the way of young families owning their own home.

We are also challenging the McGuinty Government to make good on its promise to spend our tax dollars more wisely. Dalton McGuinty is in the process of handing out $25 million in ‘severance’ payouts to its HST tax collectors – even though none of them are losing even one day on the job.

We are going to introduce an amendment to the budget that cancels this severance handout, which is an insult to every single family who actually has had to cope with a real job loss. It is an amendment that we hope all political parties will support.

Ontario can lead again. But success is not guaranteed, especially after Thursday’s budget. To create jobs – and ensure an economic recovery – Ontario needs to take a very different direction than the one we are on today. I encourage you to visit our www.10for2010.ca website and share your ideas with us.

-Randy Hillier, MPP

Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington

In the past few months in Ontario, we’ve seen the current provincial government rocked by scandal after scandal. The majority of these revolve around the so-called ABCs – Agencies, Boards, and Commissions. These arms-length organizations reach into every aspect of our lives. There are over 600 agencies, boards and commissions. They include the labour relations review board, and the construction safety association. They govern all aspects of our jobs, such as apprenticeship ratios. Of these agencies, none is worse than the WSIB.

The problems at the Workplace Safety Insurance Board go far beyond simple corruption and mismanagement. I hardly need to list the facts here for you. There is a complete lack of responsibility to stakeholders. The government has delegated legislative authority to the WSIB, a bureaucratic nightmare that defies imagination in its scale. They have allowed it a monopoly on workplace insurance in this province. It has a ballooning unfunded liability which has only grown over the years – currently, at about 12.5 billion, and getting larger by the day. It may increase to over 14 billion by year’s end. Clearly, the solution proposed by the government in Bill 119 – increasing mandatory coverage – will not fix the unfunded liability, and it may devastate our industry.

I say “our” because this is my industry as well as yours. I’m an electrician, and in my past life I was contractor. I’ve seen firsthand the amount of damage that the regulatory burden of red tape can do. I’ve also felt the pressures which you feel every day. Do we work legitimately or take cash jobs? Do we report workplace accidents, or take care of them personally? Do we dare turn the eye of government towards us, for fear of being crushed by its fist?

The regulatory red tape of this board has caused far more damage than the cost which can be measured in WSIB dues. There is also the never-ending pressure of knowing that the sword of the WSIB hangs over our heads. We never know when a faceless bureaucrat or computer program may decide to issue us backdated bills and reach retroactively into our wallets. The burden of proof in this is on us, as those being billed. There is no need for the WSIB to prove that the money is owed.

The time has come to stand up for change in this province. We can no longer abide a government that throws responsibility to unaccountable arms-length boards with no form of oversight. We can no longer abide by the WSIB’s claims to work in our interest while they expand mandatory coverage to fill the gaping hole in their unfunded liability. In this tough economic climate, we cannot abide the regulatory burden or the gross incompetence.

My answer to this problem is simple. If we have every worker covered not by the WSIB but by private insurance workers will receive the same amount of coverage at less cost, and will reduce the unfunded liability faced by this province. The competitive marketplace will ensure that insurance rates go down, not up. Make no mistake; we fully intend to continue reducing workplace accidents in this province. Government will still play a vital role in this process, but in its duty as enforcers of the law, not as a legislative profiteer.

There is a final, unseen cost to the WSIB. That cost is the unknown amount of investment lost every year because of the unfair regulatory burden placed on our industry. Business, investment, and economic development will go where their money is appreciated, not scorned. That’s why the WSIB must be reformed now – not just for us, but for all of Ontario.

There is a growing chasm between the political demands and aspirations of rural Ontario on the one hand and urban Ontario on the other. Just take a look at an electoral map of the province: federally and provincially, a red blotch on the north shore of Lake Ontario marks the Liberal urban bastion of Toronto. This is surrounded by a blue mass representing Conservative rural Ontario. These maps tell us something we know to be true, but are hesitant to speak of.

Ontario has become, essentially, home to two competing political communities, with different customs, economies, values and expectations. Unfortunately they are represented by a “unicameral” parliament with no upper house to balance the purely majoritarian legislative assembly. The result is a widening of
the gulf between the two communities, with every new law and regulation passed by an urbandominated Queen’s Park ill-suited to the needs and wishes of rural Ontario. In fact, the authors of these laws and policies are more often found in the bureaucracy than in the legislature. Nonetheless, the way to correct our unbalanced political landscape is to increase our political representation.

Two Houses Are Better Than One

What we need is a bicameral provincial government with a Senate of 50 elected representatives, one from each county, regional Municipality, and (in the north) district, to lessen this growing urban-rural chasm by tempering urban priorities that cause damage and harm to rural Ontario. Much like the federal Senate, this upper chamber ought to be able to amend or defeat most bills passed by the lower house, but be unable to introduce, alter, or defeat money bills. However, to ensure that they have a greater regard for their communities than for party discipline, provincial Senators ought to be excluded from cabinet posts.

An elected provincial senate whose representation is based on communities of interest, not population, would have the advantages of the federal senate without the failings of political patronage. Arguably, sober second thought and review is more relevant provincially than federally, as there is a more substantial and direct relationship of services between the people and their provincial governments.

The most difficult part of this proposal is that in order to create a provincial Senate, the province must first give constitutional recognition to the boundaries and legitimate jurisdictions of municipalities, counties and districts, just as the federal government does to the provinces. And contrary to popular misconception, this constitutional amendment only requires the passage of legislation in Ontario along with a request to the federal parliament that it be included in the constitution.

Presently, municipalities and counties, the form of government closest to the people, are creatures of the province and can be collapsed, amalgamated, or expanded with the stroke of a legislative pen and three readings. In addition, their responsibilities, funding, and financing dangle on the threads of whatever partisan wind is blowing. Giving them constitutional recognition would free major municipal governments from this faulty master/servant relationship.

Checking Majority Rule

An elected upper house is recognized as a requirement where diverse populations reside in large geographic jurisdictions. They exist in Australia and other successful Commonwealth countries, and in the United States. In fact, many Canadian provinces, including Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Quebec, originally had provincial Senates. They were discredited and discarded, however, because they were appointed, not elected. A provincial senate representing communities of interest, with staggered elections by preferential ballot, would ultimately reduce the number of flawed and unpopular Bills passed, preserve and respect regional diversity, and mitigate, not replicate, the failings of the lower house elected on the basis of population.

The priorities of Ontario’s urban politicians and bureaucracy are bans and restrictions, and they are out of sync with the people of rural Ontario. This has resulted in Ontario going from first to worst in economic performance, a painfully dismal record in health care, high taxes, a ballooning bureaucracy, deficits, reduced individual responsibility and freedoms, and have-not status. This dismal performance is a reflection not of coincidence, bad luck, or external factors, but of the wrong priorities. In a democracy, people, politicians, and governments are the authors of their fortunes, good or bad. But institutions matter as well as personalities. An improved bicameral political structure is needed so that the urban drum is not always the loudest.

Ontario is too large and diverse to be represented by a single legislative house. The North, South Eastern, South Western, and Central regions are significantly different than the Greater Toronto Area and indeed from each other. Our political system ought to mitigate these regional differences instead of exacerbating regional divisions.

A glance at the electoral map shows that the current system is not doing the job. It’s time for a bicameral provincial government to check and balance parliamentary majorities that show little regard for regional diversity.

As Canada becomes more diverse in certain ways, we are increasingly cornering our minds into a collectivist cage of consensus, where vocabulary and reason are shackled in public discourse. Immigration of people from other cultures ought to increase our knowledge and expand our perspective, but not if we hold our freedoms captive while unlocking the doors of morality with relativism.

The true value of diversity in Canadian society is being fraudulently coloured by politicians of all shades and tinted in our legislatures, courts, schools, and media. Diversity is a many-splendored thing, but when it is limited to multiculturalism, skin colour, language, and exotic restaurants that are visible in society, its real value is demeaned and destroyed. Although Canadians see diversity of race, creed, colour, and gender as valuable and essential, we often punish diverse opinions using courts, tribunals, and political correctness. Clearly, our insistence upon consensus is depriving Canadians of practical public policy and individual freedoms, and clouding our understanding of moral rights and wrongs within society.

Stifling Dissent

It is a timeless natural law that freedom of thought is the prime mover of human progress and prosperity. Each and every advance in human history is the result of an individual’s challenge of the status quo. History is nothing but a portrait of people who battled for advancement with their ideas. People like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein in science, and Aristotle, Jefferson, and Churchill in politics, raised the bar for all of mankind. They battled conventional thinking and policy with new ideas and opinions, and they were proved either right or wrong by the test of time. Had they succumbed to the conformity and consensus of the day, far fewer apples would have fallen from the tree of knowledge.

Although society finds value in diversity of colour and creed, we increasingly view diversity of thought and opinion as bordering upon the criminal. Just ask Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, MacLean’s magazine, or the many others who have faced the inquisition of our Human Rights Tribunals. These examples illustrate that to publicly challenge the validity of diversity politics is to bring forth the wrath and vengeance of progressive tribunals, and to be stereotyped and marginalized by pundits in the press. These same progressives who profit from and jealously guard their own freedom of expression are first in line to attack others with their legal hypocrisy.

In addition, while faulty public policies proliferate based on incomplete science and a misunderstanding of responsibility, our freedom to challenge these policies diminishes. To question the crisis of climate change is to blaspheme against the green prophets of Gaia; to challenge the public monopoly in healthcare with private competition is a universal taboo; the only safe place to oppose polygamy or Sharia law is in a darkened closet; and while expressing enthusiasm for racial inclusion, we build segregated afro-centric schools. It is indisputable that public policies that rely on the shield of political correctness do so because they cannot withstand the challenge of logic, experience, and rational discourse.

Shining a Light on Foolish Policies

As more Canadians are killed every year in Toronto than in the Afghan war, poverty industry politicians blame the gun instead of the murderer. Ontario’s government wages a phony war on poverty, which it blames for street violence, shying away from any consideration of immorality. While police create special gun and gang units to combat the real war, the government issues another welfare check which the impoverished combatants will use to buy more ammo. The war on drugs parallels the poverty war, offering government-sponsored safe injections sites, crack pipe giveaways, and free needles, while courtrooms are filled with those who buy their own drugs, but get caught. Of course, only racists and bigots would speak with such frankness on these subjects. By induction we can see that government’s promotion of diversity leads to a universal policy of contradictions and hypocrisy.

It is surely the ultimate paradox of progressivism, that it demands open hearts for a multitude of people from various backgrounds, ethnicities, and faiths, but demands closed minds for contrary opinions and opposing views.

All public policies and opinions must be freely challenged from all corners and come under the scrutiny of millions of free and inquisitive minds. Should they withstand this assault of reason, we will be able to have some confidence that the opinion is fact and the public policy is the best that mankind can attain at the time. Only then will we be able to have any confidence that Canada is on the path to freedom, justice, and prosperity, and not just painting a surreal social landscape lacking in perspective.

It is a rare occasion when an esteemed university political science professor demonstrates both intolerance and ignorance in a single interview.

One recently left his comfortable academic chair and waded into the swamps of political leadership. Along the way his foot found the traps his mouth had set and his mind had baited. Had he armed himself with some knowledge of history and a measure of respect for others, the swamp and the alligators may have been avoided.

During an interview with the Star, the professor expressed significant bias and a large dose of disdain for rural Ontario, commenting that political leaders from the countryside are likely to be “rural yahoos.” The professor further demonstrated his ignorance in stating that “smart people realize this.” Most Canadians will find these statements both repulsive and ignorant.

Objective readers with a basic knowledge of Canadian history will recognize the falseness of the professor’s statements. Canadian history is paved with a marvellous collection of rural leaders who helped build a prosperous, just society and, along the way, built the academic classrooms where generous paycheques abound. Sir John A. Macdonald leads this list, followed closely by farm kids Sir Robert Borden, Wilfrid Laurier, prairie populist John Diefenbaker and Baie-Comeau lad Brian Mulroney.

Great rural leaders are certainly not confined to federal politics. In Ontario, the rural cast includes farmer Mitch Hepburn, Frank Miller and Mike Harris, to name a few. Anyone looking at Canadian history through these misinformed academic eyes would have to conclude that Canadians are uneducated and have been led by, and voted for, a series of “yahoos.”

Of course, many urban political leaders are sprinkled amid the cobblestones of political history, Stéphane Dion, Pierre Trudeau, Dalton McGuinty, Bob Rae and Paul Martin, for instance. However, just as it is false to denigrate leaders because they may hail from a small town or rural area, it is equally false to elevate or diminish a person’s importance because they hail from the big city.

In October of last year, the professor characterized the Progressive Conservative party as the party of rural, small town and small-minded “Old Ontario.” Apparently, the professor’s liberal mind changes with the seasons, and would now like to refashion the Progressive Conservative party with metropolitan intolerance, slicked back with academic ignorance. I would remind the professor that Old Ontario laid the foundations, fed the masses and has a history of developing astute leaders in all levels of politics and governance.

On Jan. 9, John Tory tasked me to serve as the Progressive Conservative party’s critic for the rural affairs portfolio. I have watched, with great angst, the McGuinty government’s relentless assaults upon our rural economy, our rural institutions and the rural heritage of justice and culture of freedom that built this great province. The attacks on rural Ontario have been calculated and deliberate.

With great pride, I stand as an advocate for, and a citizen of, rural Ontario. Although, the current government has put the economy, culture and institutions of rural Ontario in its crosshairs, it is unacceptable for a university professor to promote this government’s harmful rural agenda.

The professor needs to understand that it is not where you grow up but what you make of yourself that determines leadership skills. And I should not have to remind him that name-calling is the lowest form of debate.

Then again, maybe I’m just a “rural yahoo.”

Original Article

Most people think of land ownership as being two-dimensional-the sort of thing that you can plot on a map. But property ownership also has a third dimension, relating to what’s underneath the soil. Sometimes it’s the landowner himself who owns potentially valuable minerals that can lie under the surface of his farm or cottage or woodlot. But often, subsurface ownership rests with the province. And when it does-watch out!

It goes without saying that you cannot dig your way through a piece of land to see what’s lying underneath without disturbing whatever is sitting on top. So the process by which mineral exploration and mining takes place on land where the province owns the subsurface rights comes as a nasty shock to most people. The Ontario government sells exploration permits to prospectors which authorise non-owners to trespass, drill, excavate, and in some cases destroy the private property of registered owners. Once a prospector has such a licence, it is perfectly legal for him to enter any property where the province is the subsurface owner, without notice or warning, and to dig trenches and other exploratory pits.

In the event that there’s nothing of value under the surface, the landowner is receives no compensation for any damage or inconvenience created during exploration. But if there is something of value down there, it is the prospector, not the landowner, who has the right to sell the mining rights. The land can be torn apart in pursuit of its mineral wealth. And in return, the landowner will get nothing at all.

The provincial government is so aggressive in promoting mining that it even permits claims to be staked and exploration work to continue where all other economic activity has been halted, on Crown lands that are subject to aboriginal land disputes. In northern Frontenac County, the unresolved Algonquin land claim has caused the province to refuse all requests for the sale or lease of small parcels of Crown land to permit recreation and tourism development. But exploration for uranium continues unabated.

This recently led to a standoff led in part by Algonquins and in part by local property owners. Both parties in this unconventional alliance felt the same frustration-that non-controversial uses of the land which are clearly beneficial to local economic development are banned, but using the land in a way that could impose significant costs on the local community with all benefits going to prospectors and mining companies from outside the community is not merely permitted by the province, but encouraged!

This is not just unfair, it’s part of a pattern. Even though it is our municipal governments that have to bear the expense of servicing public infrastructure on crown lands, and in maintaining public roads that service the access points to any mines, all royalties from any potential exploitation of these Crown lands will be sent to Toronto and into the coffers of the provincial government.

In short, in Ontario subsurface rights always trump surface rights, and the privileges of those who seek to find the mineral wealth that can generate royalties for the provincial treasury always trump the rights of local landowners, of rural municipalities, and of aboriginal groups with outstanding land claims.

This arrangement was never fair, and frankly, change is overdue. We suggest the following three changes to provincial law, which would help to set things right:

First, Ontario should award all property owners the subsurface rights to their land.

There is no legitimate reason why the province continues to own the subsurface rights to any privately owned land in the province. In recognition of this fact, ten years ago the Mike Harris government enacted Bill 68, which awarded the ownership of mineral rights to private landowners in a large swathe of southwestern Ontario with bill 68. In retrospect, the intrusive exploration by graphite prospectors in some parts of eastern Ontario and by uranium prospectors in other parts of the region make it clear that the law should have been extended to all private property, across the province. Now is the time to enact a law making the provisions of Bill 68 universal, across Ontario.

Second, revenues from mineral revenues on Crown lands should be shared with municipalities.

As we noted earlier, it is the municipal governments that must provide and maintain the infrastructure to access these lands. It is the municipality and its residents who must deal with any negative consequences of mining-be they as minor as the increased truck traffic on the roads caused by Omya’s calcite mine in Lanark County, or as major as the tailings and leachate that can accompany hard-rock mining. Surely it is inappropriate to concentrate all the costs of mining in a rural municipality and all the benefits in the treasury at Queen’s Park.

It is also worth noting that mining activity never takes place in urban areas where the property tax revenues that are the sole source of income for municipal governments are the highest. Rather, mining activity typically occurs in rural municipalities with very limited tax bases, where an infusion of mineral revenues would be enormously helpful. At the provincial treasury, by contrast, the royalties from another new mine are an almost incidental source of wealth

Third, it should be the local people themselves who decide whether mineral exploitation goes ahead.

Whether an anticipated mine is located entirely on Crown land or in part on private property, it is the local community that must bear the associated costs. Therefore, it is reasonable that whenever a mine is contemplated, residents in the relevant municipality be able to have a direct say in granting it approval. We are both admirers of the maturity that voters are capable of showing when dealing directly with complex or multifaceted questions at the ballot-box, and we therefore favour a requirement that local residents approve all new mines by means of a local referendum, prior to allowing any mine to go forward.

We are confident that if these three changes were to be incorporated in Ontario’s mining legislation, the kinds of confrontations and community hostility that have accompanied announcements of potential mining activity would be a thing of the past.

If the current trend continues – and there is no reason to think otherwise –, farming in the province of Ontario will soon be a relic of the past and a practice played out not in the fields, but in memory only. Years from now when the last family farm is bankrupt and corporate factory farms have finished monopolizing the industry, people will look back and wonder if the destruction was avoidable. For farmers, this is the critical moment when they must ask themselves the tough questions and be prepared to accept the painful answers. What went wrong? Who is responsible? Can the problems be fixed? These questions have been willfully avoided but necessity demands answers.

Beggars on tractors

There are three types of farmers in Ontario. The first group is blind to the storm clouds above; they remain ignorant of their surroundings and never venture far afield or voice their concerns. The second group realizes the economic dangers and understands that drastic solutions must be made to save the industry. The third group also recognizes the dangers; however their long-term view is fixed on their mailbox and a government cheque. This group poses the greatest threat to farming, as they are blind to the cause or remedy. Their welfare views hurt everyone, not just themselves.

When looking at what went wrong in agriculture, the answer is simple. The third group relinquished not only their property, but all farmers’ property. They traded away their god given right to be masters of their own destiny to grow, market and process their product, for false security and safety. However, they foolishly believed they could keep prosperity and the rewards of their ambition. Many marketing and commodity boards now have absolute power to control the buying, selling, and production of commodities.

Farmers also sold out their future and freedom by accepting government regulations that dictate every use and activity on the farm. Farmers unknowingly surrendered themselves to a mild form of slavery, and have become slaves in the truest sense of the word. They are slaves to their farm groups and to the corporate monopolies that control them, and are caged by the regulations of safety and security. Slaves are never self-reliant, free, nor prosperous.

Who is responsible? The answer is clear. Under the leadership of the General Farm organizations and the commodity and marketing boards, farm profits have plummeted. These organizations created an economic system which is devoid of competition, which helped to monopolize food processing. These groups planted the socialist seeds to eliminate risks in the marketplace, and are now undertakers at the farmer’s funeral procession.

As long as the purchase of commodities remains monopolized, and they continue to receive government dollars, these organizations will continue to destroy farming. To hide their incompetent leadership these groups encourage perennial migrations and toothless farm rallies to grovel at the foot of Queens Park and Ottawa, begging for more money, and new regulations. Six billion this year; how many billons next year? But money will not help them, money is never free, and beggars aren’t respected, nor have a long life.
The cost of begging

Every year is the same. The government gives farmers money, and the trade off is more and costly regulations that drain the fields of wealth. Restrictions on land use and practices, rising costs to comply, and greater public ownership over private lands is the cost of begging. In such a flawed economic system, no amount of money can fix the problem; it only propagates further decline. Very soon, the cost of farming will outweigh the benefits and the loss in income will be insurmountable. This is a hard truth which is slapping farmers in the face and though some realize it, many others do not. The farm organizations and the marketing boards have become self-serving organizations and farming has collapsed as a result.

We have seen these welfare farmers during the past few weeks on Parliament Hill, and at food and fuel terminals, in what was a shameful exercise of mock protest. Those who pretended to blockade food, and fuel distribution, while allowing shipments must have felt humiliation. This half-hearted protest to solve the problems on the farm was in fact no attempt at all. It was a coward’s way of disguising inaction. The welfare class is now on strike, and outstretched hands hold up their picket lines.

This demand for money rings hollow in the ears of politicians and the public who see this threat is an ineffectual tea-cup protest. The continuing demand for more money and more handouts is the same welfare strategy which has brought farming to the brink of collapse. Those farmers who parade their tractors in search of public money with the yellow signs that read “farmers feed cities” are not the victims they claim to be, but the authors of their own destruction. The urban politicians in Ottawa and Queens Park could not be more thrilled with this demand for money, because this means farmers are willing to be bought and paid for, with the scraps of governments’ largess.

In the case of agriculture, what politicians really fear and respect are farmers who reject government handouts and who would never lower themselves to being bribed with their own money. Nor would these farmers carry yellow signs which read, “Farmers feed cities,” for under this thin veneer, the real message is “Give us more money.” Rather, the farmers who understand that the root problems afflicting agriculture must be solved first and that yearly government handouts are not the solution but part of the problem, have rallied around a red and white sign which reads: “This Land is Our Land; Back Off Government.”

The financial ruin on Ontario farms is undeniable, but it is not a tragedy. A victim, who by no fault of his own is driven by fate, or the malicious actions of others, into inevitable destruction, characterizes tragedy. Yet in farming there is no victim, because many farmers embrace this poisoned package of corrupt management boards, a bill of government lies and false promises, and follow cowardly accredited organizations. They have committed economic suicide, and now demand public health-care to revive them.

The farmers who participate in the “One Voice/Farmers Feed Cities” program are sowing their future with the seeds of social and economic failure. The crop they reap will not be rewarding, but one of destitution and overwhelming guilt. Follow the yellow signs on the road. The path of proven failure awaits.

Without question, the road to Canada’s high standard of living and democracy was originally paved by the rural economy. Our forefathers cultivated a lifestyle of individual liberty, independence, and self-reliance through sustainable fishing, farming, and forestry. The harvest was prosperity, mutual respect, and good government. However, Canada’s prosperous rural economy is crumbling and under attack from urban socialism and the weight of government deception.

The rural lifestyle and economy is being abandoned on the long march to the City of Dependence. The few rural people who remain are invisible and are Canada’s newest minority group, but without charter protection or political representation. Although the rural economy continues to fuel our standard of living, it won’t last long. Canada’s food production feeds many but is falling, and dependence on food imports rise every year. For over two hundred years, the forestry industry created employment and wealth, supplying local and foreign markets, but is rapidly disappearing. And Canada’s 500-year-old fishery died a slow and painful fifty-year death of government euthanasia. The Atlantic fishery and maritime way of life was lost in one generation, replaced with a coffin of welfare, and nailed shut with the government handouts and control. Governments are crafting more coffins of regulations for the rural economy and lifestyle that still survives, but this is for the “public good.”

Although the rural economy employs many, most people are unaware how urban regulations intended to protect society actually destroy the rural foundation society rests on. It’s difficult to see the rural landscape or understand the problems from a distant high-rise condo in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto. The maze of government legislation obscures the view with municipal amalgamations, buffer zones, species at risk, firearm registries, loss of property rights, etc. The silent sawmills, and unproductive farmland, are unseen and unheard from the supermarket aisles, or Home Depots’ cashier, but are a rural reality.

Blitzkrieg of regulations
The forestry industry is facing a blitzkrieg of environmental regulations and closings. The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) is leading the charge, but municipal and federal governments are in reserve. MOE SWAT teams seek out rural sawmills and burden them with large fines and expensive work orders, and demand sawmills hire consultants, engineer work plans, and drill test wells, which cost tens of thousands of dollars. The offence is bark, mulch, and sawdust piles. Many sawmills can’t afford the financial and administrative burden and lay off employees, stop buying logs and new equipment, and reduce their overhead and maintenance costs. Four Eastern Ontario mills closed this year and more will follow, felled by a bureaucracy that could not see that their forest of regulations would chop down this branch of rural prosperity. Environmental chains of bureaucratic ignorance have shackled rural loggers and millwrights to rural unemployment lines and business closings.

Maple sugar producers are also in the line of fire as municipalities reassess bush lots as “industrial operations,” resulting in a six hundred percent tax increase for many. The cost can’t be absorbed or passed onto the consumer. Another prosperous limb must be amputated from the rural economy to finance another branch of useless bureaucracy. In addition, new municipal tree-cutting bylaws demand landowners apply, and receive bureaucratic approval to manage and harvest timber from private land. For two hundred years, rural people have sustained a lifestyle as stewards of the lands, but their first-hand experience and practical knowledge is obsolete in the face of bureaucratic incompetence.

Rural meat packers are slaughtered with low quality government inspectors and regulations, as Canadians equate bureaucratic inspections and standards with quality or safety; however, this stamp of approval doesn’t guaranty either. Competition and choice are the only true means to insure quality, and when competition falls, so does quality, but costs soar. Inspection agencies constantly increase the number of costly regulations to meat packers, hoping to improve quality, but the consequence is fewer plants and less competition. Expensive overregulation has closed one third of Ontario’s meat packers in eight years. As the small rural packing plants close, large corporate abattoirs prosper in their place. With nearly one hundred rural meat packing plants closed, the loss to Ontario’s rural economy is substantial, but not even a whisper of concern is heard in the city. The safety net of government management carves up the rural marketplace and competition, one meatpacker at a time, until there are none left.

« There are hundreds of regulations preventing family farms from selling their produce directly to consumers; this is in addition to marketing boards, Nutrient Management Plans, and municipal zonings restrictions which reduce the value and profits of family farms. »

Many urbanites fear and dread intensive farm operations, but the path to factory farms is paved with the unintended consequences of government regulations. There are hundreds of regulations preventing family farms from selling their produce directly to consumers; this is in addition to marketing boards, Nutrient Management Plans, and municipal zonings restrictions which reduce the value and profits of family farms. Well-intended government regulations corrupt the marketplace and encourage factory farms that absorb regulation costs over large business volumes. New dairy farms can’t start; the cost for milk quota is too prohibitive. Unlike the corporate farm, cattle and hog farmers cannot bear the cost to hire consultants to engineer Nutrient Management Plans and build sewage lagoons. Crop and cereal farmers are not permitted to protect their crops from wildlife damage, as deer forage in their fields; Walt Disney’s Bambi must be protected, not the family farm. Today the only value of a family farm is as a housing subdivision to develop more habitat for urban environmentalist.

The common ammunition in the attacks on the rural economy are regulations that have no value to consumers, producers and society. The only purpose for these unnecessary regulations is more employment for bureaucrats, more government control of people, and a deceptive means to justify more user fees and taxation. This attack is only possible because the legal means to protect and defend individual’s from government interference and injustice was compromised in Canada’s court of collective society. The 1982 Constitutional loss of the right to own, use, and earn a living from private property, removed the individual’s last shield of protection against the bureaucracy’s weapons of mass individual destruction.

The hypocrisy is clear; unnecessary legislation intended to protect society and the environment remove good stewards from the land, and shatters the cornerstones of democracy. Freedom and democracy, once cultivated in the countryside, are being culled from society in the nets of red tape; and independence, prosperity, and self-reliance suffocate as the rural economy and lifestyle becomes extinct for the “public good.”