Dear Constituents,

As of Sept. 10, 2007, this website will be frozen for the duration of the 2007 general election campaign. During the campaign, any press releases, statements or other activities of mine will be posted on my PC campaign site.

My constituency office (at 4961 King Street E, Unit M1 in Beamsville) will remain open during campaign to serve constituents and can be contacted at or by email at .

With the changing of riding boundaries, this marks the official end of the riding known as Erie-Lincoln. Boundary changes have sent Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Wainfleet and Dunnville to other ridings while Lincoln and West Lincoln will now form Niagara West-Glanbrook with Grimsby, Pelham, Glanbrook and Upper Stoney Creek.

I thank all of my constituents in Erie-Lincoln for their years of helpful advice, encouragement, and support. It has been an extraordinary honour to serve you.

Given your thoughtfulness and your faith in me at a relatively young age, you will always have an ardent support and a dedicated friend in Tim Hudak.

Best wishes and thanks,

Tim

Why I am voting "No" to more politicians

Tim Hudak
From the Park Bench

Democratic renewal is certainly an essential tool in making sure our political system in Ontario progresses to best serve the interests of Ontario residents.

If you consider progress to be a 20 per cent increase in the number of politicians at Queen’s Park, you just may like the proposed Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system of electing MPPs.

On October 10, Ontario residents will not only be casting votes in the general provincial election, they will also be asked to vote in a referendum to change our electoral system to one that exists in New Zealand and Germany. If the referendum passes, the next provincial election will follow the new rules.

Under the proposed MMP system, you get two votes: one for your local MPP and one for the political party of your choice. That may sound interesting on the surface, but it unfortunately not only gives birth to 20 per cent more politicians, it also creates two tiers of MPPs.

The number of MPPs who are elected the “old fashioned way” and actually represent ridings would shrink from 107 to 90, meaning that riding boundaries would expand significantly. The already expansive Niagara West-Glanbrook that stretches from Pelham to Grimsby to the Hamilton airport in Mount Hope would become even larger.

The most disturbing aspect of the proposed change, however, is the creation of a second tier of MPPs called “list MPPs”. The 39 list MPPs would be selected from lists of candidates hand-selected by the party bosses and back room advisors according to a party’s share of the province-wide vote.

List MPPs would not have ridings to represent. They would sit at Queen's Park, have full voting rights but would not report back to any particular set of voters when the Legislature is not in session.

Directly representing specific taxpayers in a specific part of the Province holds politicians accountable. If an MPP or an MP votes contrary to the wishes of the riding or says something outrageous or just plain wrong, that politician will hear about it at the local Sobey's or at the Fall Fair.

MPPs and MPs regularly host or attend public events in order to directly hear the concerns and advice of local taxpayers. It is beyond me who the “list MPPs” would report back to since they have no ridings to represent.

I suspect that many of the people put on each party list would be those who could not get elected directly by voters anywhere in the province. For example, recently in Israel, a scandal erupted over list politicians who were the sons and daughters of the richest donors to the party.

Our system is not perfect. In fact, we could make substantial improvements by strengthening the ability of MPPs to better reflect their personal views or the prevailing opinion in their ridings rather than merely towing the party line.

However, the proposed MMP system will make the problems of strict party discipline and the resultant lack of accountability to taxpayers even worse. That’s why I am voting “No” to Mixed Member Proportional.