Freedom Flyer 28

Although the three main political parties in the Ontario election campaign get most of the attention, and properly so, voters might well also ponder the well-considered and contrasting views of the Family Coalition Party (FCP) and the Freedom Party of Ontario (FP).

Two of the leading candidates for the FCP and FP are running in Middlesex: Jamie Harris for the FCP and Barry Malcolm for the FP. Irene Mathyssen is seeking to hold the seat for the New Democrats, Doug Reycraft is attempting a comeback for the Liberals, and Bruce Smith aims to regain the riding for the Progressive conservatives.

POSITIONS:At an all-candidates meeting in Strathroy last week, all five demonstrated an impressive ability to articulate the respective positions of their parties. But since the general policies of the NDP, the Liberals and the conservatives are generally well known, this column will focus on the contrasting viewpoints of the FCP and FP as represented by Harris and Malcolm.

On many issues, the two parties are indistinguishable. Both, for example, are profoundly skeptical of government job-creation programs.

Harris suggested to his Strathroy audience that the NDP's JobsOntario program is, at best, "an interesting token" for the chronically unemployed that provides only hugely expensive and temporary benefits. To generate more, lasting jobs, he insisted, "basically, we need smaller government, we need less government spending and ultimately reduced taxation."

Malcolm could not have agreed more. If government-funded job creation really works, he asked, why did the NDP not hugely expand JobsOntario with a view to wiping out unemployment altogether, instead of piecemeal? In Malcolm's judgment taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers so it can be funnelled through a team of government bureaucrats and back into a so-called job-creation program is a hugely wasteful and inefficient procedure. He holds that government can only solve the problem of unemployment by taxing less and allowing consumers to spend more on things of their own choice.

Malcolm also insisted that "What we need is a limited government that will put its fiscal house in order in a responsible manner." On this point, too, Harris concurred. "To promise any kind of tax reduction is irresponsible," he contended. "We must balance the budget as soon as possible because as Barry (Malcolm) was saying, all we are doing is deferring taxation for every dollar we borrow."

Harris and Malcolm also agreed on the merits of workfare for able-bodied welfare recipients, the evils of employment-equity discrimination, and the desirability of giving parents freedom of choice in education through a voucher system.

Likewise, the FCP and the FP both favor abolition of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

MORAL ROLE: Where these parties part company is on the moral role of government. Harris. for example, said the FCP is horrified by the casino gambling business, and would shut it down, because it fosters gambling addiction, destroys families, and undermines the work ethic. Malcolm said the FP would also like to see the Ontario government get out of the gambling business, but would sell off the Windsor casino to the private sector.

That's typical of the Freedom party. It maintains, as Malcolm explained, "that the purpose of government is to protect individual freedom of choice, not to restrict it. We believe," he emphasized, "that everyone has the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights should be protected from fraud or physical force on the part of any individual or group, including any government."

On this basis, Malcolm said the FP would close down the censor board of Ontario, legalize the sale of marijuana and license private-sector brothels. In the judgment of the FP, government should not coerce people into doing, or refraining from doing, anything solely for their own good.

Harris and the FCP fundamentally disagree with this laissez-faire, individualist, libertarianism of the FP. They also scorn "the weathervane morality" of the Conservatives and the "progressive" morality of the Liberals and New Democrats. Alone among the parties, the FCP insists that government should consistently promote marriage, the procreative family and the sanctity of human life.

While the FCP and the FP would both abolish funding for abortions, the FP is otherwise pro-choice. Only the FCP resolutely upholds the right to life of all innocent human beings from conception to natural death.