Should Freedom Groups Support Poilievre?

Freedom groups are generally avoid taking a political stand. If less government rule and lower taxes are among their goals, a political stand is necessary. Labour unions provide the best approach.

Letter to Duncan.

In an email exchange, Duncan argues the reasons why a freedom group should avoid or postpone any show of allegiance to a particular political party. Part of this exchange was inspired by our admiration of the new Stronach Foundation which has also declare itself to be politically non-partisan.

Since Pierre Poilievre has the best chance to dethrone (ideally to obliterate) the Liberal-NDP stranglehold on Parliament, I (an avowed Libertarian no less) am suggesting that freedom groups support all federal Conservation candidates. The goal is to ensure the cleanest possible Parliamentary ‘plate’ from which to feed millions of Canadians who are starving for a dish of the good old-fashion democracy of Canada’s yesteryears.

§§§§________________________________§§§§

Duncan. Thanks for your comments.

I wish to clarify and elaborate upon what I have proposed and why I believe it’s necessary and timely.

I am actually suggesting to follow the playbook of the most successful political lobby enterprises of all  - the labour unions.

Our goal must be to provide an effective counter-weight on the scales of election outcomes to OPPOSE the unions’ desires to continually expand the size, cost and scope of authority in ways that favours only their interests.

This can only be accomplished in the political realm by supporting the politician and Party that have the greatest chance of success and whose stated values, policies and principles most closely align with ours.

A story may help to explain why.

Allen Small was leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party from 2011 to 2019, and my close personal friend (he died in 2022).   Allen was a retired high school Science teacher who, as an alumnus, continued to receive messaging (newsletters, op-ed, ads, etc)  from his former teachers union. For every election, unions launch a “get out the vote” campaign to support either the Liberals or NDP “in solidarity with their brothers and sisters”.

While not registered as a political party, a union can CLAIM to be “non-partisan” while influencing the voting choices of hundreds of thousands of union members. Persistent messaging encourages members to vote solely in the interests of ”organized labour” which often go directly against the broader interests of Canadians who do not belong to their ‘tribe’.

A case in point.

In the 2014 Ontario election in which Conservative Leader Tim Hudak seemed to have a chance at winning as we watched early returns, Allen Small and I sat in a Toronto pub watching the televised election coverage.

At one point, Allen stated matter-if-factly that Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne would form the next government - a majority. He explained that the unions’ “get out the vote” campaign would be the difference.

Wynne won a majority on receiving just 39.6% of the recorded votes in an election with a poor election turnout - just under 50% of eligible voters cast a vote. This meant that Kathleen Wynne had become Liberal Premier with just 20% of possible votes. Allan knew first hand how effective unions are at getting their members and alumni to the polls, typically in the 90% range. Meanwhile, the general population tended to vote less than 50% of the time.

The Union Advantage

The influence of union leaders on their members with respect to political advice is very strong and generally self-serving and Marxist in nature. They have powerful ways to leverage that influence:

• Unions collect enormous revenues from their members from annual union dues and from donations for self-serving causes such as elections. These funds form an invaluable war chest from which to draw for their exclusive purposes.

• Unions possess the contact information of every member and use this resource effectively to promote propaganda and political messaging. Typically, they encourage recipients to either engage in politics as a candidate or become a political campaign volunteer for the NDP or LIBs. Have you ever heard of an active union member running as a Conservative candidate? No? Didn’t think so. LOL.

• Public sector union representatives are well-connected within the public service institutions. They provide union labour in a “supplier-customer” relationship enforced by longstanding laws, regulations and often undisclosed mutual interests. Such “insider knowledge” would be illegal for investors in the stock exchange, but is considered “business as usual” for public sector labour unions.

Strategy: Apply the union playbook for democratic goals.

A freedom group of significant size and ambition could copy the union playbook exactly and work with like-minded groups like The Stronach Foundation to achieve goals of mutual interest. For example, both could:

• Maintain political party neutrality at the headquarters level, but encourage members to support political candidates who would pledge to Frank Stronach’s 7 Points and support his Economic Charter. Stronach’s mission serves the interests of every Canadian, not special interest privileges. ADVOCACY for a political outcome is what unions do, and do very effectively without direct engagement in the political arena. Freedom groups would be wise to copy it.

• Stronach prevented unions from entering Magna during his long career because he understood their potential to coerce changes in his many workplaces which would be contrary to his interests as a business (property) owner. I suspect that Frank would appreciate the irony of following the union model - one that has a proven track record in shaping political outcomes. A significant freedom group could and should align with Stronach’s Economic Charter and participate in “non-partisan” advocacy for any politician who espouse the values and policies that align with both groups.

• Let’s consider the Statement of Principles (SOP) which was authored by a select committee of Civis4Reform members over several months. Stronach would find it to be a very useful political tool which he could leverage as follows: What if Frank were to publicly offer his support of Pierre Poilivre in a televised ceremony at which Pierre signs the SOP? This public signing will display Pierre’s commitment to the SOP as “THE PEOPLES’ CONSTITUTION of 2024”, and to its statements regarding The Rights of Persons and The Duties of Government.

• What if Stronach’s www.economiccharter.ca were to publish the entire Statement Of Principles, display the Poilivre signing event, and then continue to engage and list every politician (regardless of party affiliation) who signs the SOP. Likely, the only politicians and other authority figures who would agree to do this publicly will be those who were unlikely to be ostracized by their traditional followers. For example, Marxists would surely avoid such invitations to sign. William Gairdner’s boos about the “political divide” predicts that the “willing” and “unwilling” signatories with be sorted naturally. .

• Like the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, a permanent online record could remain of every elected official and active political candidate that has signed the SOP Oath of Allegiance. Called the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES DECLARATION, such a web site could be segmented into three government categories: municipal, provincial and federal. Perhaps eventually, the site could include a list third party organizations which operate within the “orbit or government privileges and payments” (such as NGOs).

• The SOP could be marketed as “The PEOPLES’ CONSTITUTION” because, unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, the Bill of Rights, and every other constitutional document, it was written by Canadian individuals for the protection of the inalienable rights, personal freedoms and justly-acquired property of all Canadian persons. Critically, The Peoples’ Constitution was written without any union or government funding or influence, and it also borrowed from the best parts of the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter which have been ratified as law in Canada. In other words, The Peoples’ Constitution needs no further approval by the citizens of Canada.

• With such established approval,  the The Peoples’ Constitution of 2024 must be considered by all to be the updated, legitimate and definitive PEOPLES’ CONSTITUTION to which politicians must swear allegiance, hold themselves accountable, and against which electors can justly expect them to abide strictly to their official and patriotic duties.

EQUAL TERMS MUST APPLY.

Just as public servants must join a union as a condition of employment, all elected representatives and government officials with budget responsibilities much be required to sign the SOP Oath of Allegiance in order to undertake the duties of their office.

• Consequences matter. Any elected representative or unelected holder of public budget authority who may be found to act contrary to their signed SOP Oath of Allegiance must be charged in breech of their duties, and judged accordingly. No government court, or any government-funded entity, may participate in trying the accused or issuing consequences: this is the sole authority of the local citizens who may only participate in a trial after reading and signing the SOP Oath of Allegiance before undertaking trial duty. (To swear in the Bible may be optional in addition to the SOP Oath).

• Trial by constituents. Local CATC members, or an equivalent peoples’ council, can be chosen to competently hold trials without the cost, build-in biases and bureaucratic processes of establish government institutions of “justice”. The reputation of local citizens is at stake when administrating justice fairly for their friends, families and local communities; these people are best suited to measure, weigh and determine fair consequences according to the SOP Oath of Allegiance as well as consideration of the severity of harms caused either by intent, or by incompetence, in relation to the perpetrator’s execution of his or her duties of office.

• Trial venues. A neutral, non-governmental site, such as a CATC office that is suitable for the purpose, can and should be used to ensure no interference by government or other partisan parties.

The “big picture”: a summary.

      The scales of political justice have been tilted against too many individual Canadians and in favour of powerful special interests for far too long. Public sector labour unions are just the best example of how and why our democracy is eroding due to this imbalance.

      Ideally, change must come to the economic and political landscape in Canada. The corrupting forces of “special interests politics” must be replaced by a level topography of genuine democratic rights and freedoms for every person in Canada.

In practice, this also means that the leaders of NGOs, registered charities, crown corporations, and any organization that receives government subsidies and/or preferential legislative privileges, must sign the SOP Oath of Allegiance as a pre-condition for receiving any “help” from our governments.

Posting the names of everyone with public authority who has voluntarily signed the SOP Oath of Allegiance is an important way to give some teeth to our public institutions where accountability is concerned. An online SOP_Declaration website can make available the name and responsibility of each manager with budget responsibility who has sworn to execute their duties in accordance with The Peoples’ Constitution. It also conveys a personal and public commitment to do their part to restore Canada to a safe, fair and prosperous civil society. Heck, I would anticipate many to display this commitment on LINKEDIN as a ‘badge of honour’ to proudly proclaim.

A Concluding note to Duncan.

I understand your reluctance for a non-partisan freedom group to step boldly into the political arena. There will certainly be unpleasant consequences. However, I believe that bold action must be taken to make a significant splash in the media and the broader public psyche.

We Canadians tend to be passive and respectful. This is one reason that we find ourselves in our current mess and in search of a way out. Labour unions are anything but passive and respectful of broader Canadian interests. While I oppose their methods and purpose, I have witnessed their success over many decades. This is what has inspired me to adapt their model to our mission and objectives.

I have asked “HOW?” to get Canada back on track too many times to count. This proposal is the best that I can offer regarding an alignment with the goals of Frank’s Foundation.

The lyrics of the Doors song Five To One says:

The old get old, And the young get stronger

May take a week, And it may take longer

They got the guns, But we got the numbers

Gonna win, yeah, We're takin' over, Come on!

Those italicized words energize me because I believe Canadians have all but lost their democracy. The coup has been gradual but it is nearing completion.

Xi Jingping says China operates under “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

The LIB/NDP power cabal is intend on imposing “Socialism with Canadian characteristics”. This must be stopped while we are still free to vote.

If we lose the right to vote, Canada will become “Communism with Canadian characteristics”.

Then, there will be no turning back.