Hillier vs. Klees: Let’s Get To The Issue

The following is an excerpt from Christina Blizzard’s column on Randy Hillier in the Toronto Sun. I challenge anyone to find anything said or written by Frank Klees in the current Ontario PC leadership race that even remotely approaches this:

(Hillier) also champions the right of doctors to refuse to perform abortions.  “If somebody finds it morally offensive to perform an abortion, I find it terrible that the state may compel that person to do it — at the loss of his credentials and his ability to earn a living,” he says. 

I ask him if OHIP should continue to fund abortions. 

“I think there’s a whole range of things in OHIP that we have to re-evaluate,” he says, pointing out eye exams are no longer covered, while sex change operations are.  “I don’t think OHIP is reflective of society at this time in what they fund and what they don’t fund and I think we have to have an honest discussion about what set of procedures are going to be funded that reflect the values of Ontario’s society,” he says. 

I implore all my fellow pro-lifers in Ontario who are planning to vote in this race – if you want action instead of good intentions, don’t waste your first choice supporting the candidate of those who have accomplished nothing in 40 years to protect the unborn. There is only one candidate in this race with a plan to move our agenda forward and the courage to talk about it publicly. That candidate is Randy Hillier. The plan may not be everything we want, but its a start.

Please feel free to forward this email to your contact list.

Joseph C. Ben-Ami

3 thoughts on “Hillier vs. Klees: Let’s Get To The Issue

  1. Dear Mr Pacheco,

    Although I appreciate what you are doing, and I certainly appreciate Mr Hiller’s statements, I have a deep concern here.

    This election is for a candidate for premier. Unfortunately, given his lack of experience in government, and his lack of caucus support, I am not certain that Mr Hiller is qualified to be premier.

    Even if he was chosen as leader, and subsequently won an election, Mr Hiller would need strong support from caucus and party organization to move forward with any controversial aspects of his platform. Mr Hiller is able to be more outspoken about his platform because he knows that he is approaching this as a protest candidate; for him to actually implement any of it, he would need to have the backing of his MPPs. When Frank Klees stresses that he would need such support, he is simply admitting what Mr Hiller need not in his position – he is simply being honest.

    Mr Klees, by contrast, has a long record of hard work on pro-life and pro-family issues; he has been forthright about his position, and has not attempted to distance himself from the endorsement by Campaign Life (which is significant in itself, since it could have hurt him). Mr Klees also has the background in cabinet and the respect of his fellows to serve effectively as premier, and to move forward a pro-life agenda. He also has much more chance of being elected.

    What is really significant about this election is that two of the front-runners are on record as having pro-life convictions (Klees being more open about this than Hudak). This means that if one of them were to become premier (and either would have a realistic shot), then pro-life MPPs in the caucus would be able to introduce some private member’s bills without running into opposition from the party. There are a lot of things that backbenchers can do that cabinet ministers can’t. And, of course, cabinet ministers can do things that backbenchers cannot; it’s important not to confuse these two roles.

    At the end of the day, Hillier is not pro-life; Klees is. Hillier is not ready yet to be premier; Klees is. It is, unfortunately, quite likely that Hiller would not be elected; Klees would have a decent shot. Under either Klees or Hudak, we would at least have a Conservative premier on record as having pro-life views.

    In any case, it’s over in a week. The important thing now is to begin to focus on the local nomination contests, to make sure that whoever is in the leader’s office is supported by a team of solid, qualified, pro-life candidates. If this doesn’t happen, the leader will be crippled no matter who it is. If it does, the most important thing the leader can do is to not get in their way.


  2. Mr. Pacheco: In short; I agree with Michael above. I work for the Frank Klees Campaign, but please don’t think that this is the reason for my bias. The opposite is true: it is my pro-life bias that led me to become involved with Frank.

    He has said openly that he welcomes the fact that he is known as pro-life, and has put forward several bills that demonstrate his ability to act. He stood up against the silent vote for Bill 171, to be followed by only two others. Against the crowd. For this alone, he should be congradulated, and given a better name in the pro-life community.

    And maybe more importantly: if you cannot suggest Klees as a pro-life candidate, you should not parade Hillier as friendly to the pro-life movement. This man told CLC that he didn’t want to be labled. What does this smell of? In my opinion, cowardice or treachery, to dramatize it. If Hillier is pro-life, then he must be weak in that position, because he won’t even accept the name of pro-life. If he’s not pro-life, he must be deceitful, for he won’t let people know that, people who have hope for him as a candidate who might stand for life and the family.

    To wrap up, (I’m leaving the office now) Hillier is not a leader. He tosses out ideas for future policy, while achieving nothing but swaying some socons.

    Klees stands up and protects his own morals, and the morals of the socon community, without so much regard for his own name.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
11 × 18 =