Good morning,

Over the past three weeks, I have received thousands of messages of support from Canadians across the country who want a real choice in October 2019.

I have been in contact with hundreds of people wishing to get involved as volunteers or stand as candidates. Many groups of supporters are being organized, even before the party is officially registered.

And we have already raised $140,000 from very generous donors, even though it is not possible for us to issue tax receipts yet.

Setting up a new party is a long process and it will take many more weeks to complete it with Elections Canada.

However, today, we are taking a new and important step, with the unveiling of the name, logo, and website of the new party, and the opening of our headquarter in Gatineau.

Here it is: The People’s Party of Canada. PPC.

Why this name? Because it is time that the government put the Canadian people first when they make decisions and policies. It is time to put power back into the people’s hands.

For too long, Canadian politics has been hijacked by interest groups, cartels, lobbies, international organisations, corporate or union interests, and the interests of politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa who are disconnected from ordinary citizens.

This is why government never stops growing. Taxes and regulations never stop increasing. The Liberal government is out-of-control and out-of-touch. It has become unable to solve basic problems such as the migrant crisis and pipeline approval.

We see it in the way the old parties try to attract votes and support. Not by offering solutions that appeal to all Canadians. But by pandering to various groups and dividing Canadians into little tribes that can be bought with promises, privileges and taxpayers’ money.

Nobody speaks for all Canadians. Nobody speaks for the people.

The People’s Party of Canada will fight for the same fundamental values that I have put forward during my leadership campaign last year: Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Fairness and Respect.

We don’t believe that government intervention is a solution for everything. Government should not intervene to solve each and every problem on the road to a utopian and unrealistic vision of society.

We want smaller government because we support individual freedom and personal responsibility. We have faith in people. We have faith that they have the ability, the dignity and the right to make their own decisions and determine their own destiny.

The People’s Party will restore Fairness in our country by denouncing the taxes, programs and regulations:

• that protect industries from competition, create barriers to trade and force consumers to pay more for goods and services;
• that discourage investment, crush private initiative, and the dreams of young entrepreneurs;
• that force citizens to be content with inefficient government services and prevent private alternatives to emerge;
• that unfairly distribute wealth from some provinces to others while keeping the recipient provinces in poverty.

The People’s Party will:

• respect the taxpayers;
• respect our Constitution;
• equally respect all regions, provinces and territories;
• and respect our traditions, our history, and what makes Canada a unique place in the world, without trying to forcibly change it like the current Liberal government is doing.

In the coming months, I will be defending these principles consistently, openly, with passion and conviction, as Leader of the People’s Party of Canada.

We intend to have 338 candidates at the general election next year and be a competitive player everywhere. I invite all Canadians to go to the People’s Party website at peoplespartyofcanada.ca, become a founding member, get involved, and be part of history.

Thank you.

* * *

PRESS CONFERENCE – Announcement of New Party

HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER, PC, INDEPENDENT MP FOR BEAUCE AND FUTURE LEADER OF THE PEOPLE’S PARTY OF CANADA

National Press Theatre
Ottawa, Ontario
Friday, September 14th, 2018

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Maxime Bernier, Leader of the People’s Party of Canada

The Rebel Live Conference

Calgary, October 10, 2018

(Thanks)

You probably know that one of my nicknames, apart from “Mad Max,” is “the Albertan from Quebec.” So it’s always a pleasure to be back here in Calgary, to reconnect with my Alberta roots!

And it’s even more of a pleasure to be in a room full of true Alberta conservatives. That’s like being in conservative heaven!

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding here: I’m talking of course about a… small-c conservative heaven!

I hear that the leader of the big-c Conservatives, Andrew Scheer, has declined Ezra’s invitation to address this room.

And as you all know, at the Conservative convention in Halifax in August, the Rebel’s journalists were banned. Not respectable enough.

Which means that you too in this room, attending this Rebel conference, are considered not respectable by the Conservative leadership.

That should tell you something. Is the Conservative Party of Canada still a true small-c conservative party?

You know my answer to this. It’s NO. That’s why I resigned in August and created a new party.

I’m fairly certain that some of you in this room are not happy about my departure from the Conservative Party.

Perhaps you believe I should have stayed and pushed for my ideas within the party. That we should have remained united to beat the Trudeau Liberals next year.

I tried to do this for more than a year, without success. And it was my plan to continue until just a few days before my resignation.

When my tweets about radical multiculturalism created a storm in early August, I thought I was expressing what almost all conservatives believe in.

We must start pushing back against this politically correct nonsense that’s destroying our society and culture. But the reaction from my Conservative colleagues was universally negative.

And then, in a phone conservation, Andrew Scheer told me I did not represent the party and my ideas were not welcome. He repeated the same line publicly. And I was told to either shut up and toe the party line, or leave.

This should not have surprised anyone. Andrew plays the same game of pandering as Trudeau.

Are you following him on Twitter or Facebook? Every second day, he wishes happy independence day, or happy whatever holiday, to Canadians who immigrated here from this or that country. He seems to be running not for Prime Minister, but for Secretary General of the UN.

This is the Trudeau way of doing politics. Focus on what divides us instead of appealing to our common identity and treating us as Canadians first and foremost. That’s not the conservative way.

So, what should I have done? There comes a time when you have to choose. Choose to play along in a losing game. Or choose to be true to yourself, true to your principles, and loyal toward all the people who support you.

I chose the principled alternative. And I hope to convince you to do the same.

I’m pretty sure nobody here needs convincing that the Trudeau Liberals must go. Ezra and his team do a fantastic job of exposing Trudeau’s disastrous policies.

The only important debate from a true conservative perspective is: Who is best positioned to replace him? We have less than one year to decide this.

Andrew Scheer is NOT that person. For a whole series of reasons that now differentiate the old Conservative Party from the People’s Party.

Exhibit 1: Pandering to interest groups

Let’s talk about supply management. I know, you’re fed up with this issue! But it cannot be avoided.

That’s the socialist system put in place by Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s that protects 13,000 millionaire farmers. It forces Canadian families to pay hundreds of dollars more every year for poultry, eggs, and dairy products.

It’s a cartel that is legally allowed to fix prices. It’s the opposite of the free market.

There is absolutely no reason for a conservative party to support such a system. Apart from the fact that in a few rural ridings, mostly in Quebec and Ontario, the supply management vote can have an influence on the results.

It’s not the economic issue itself that is so important. It’s important because it’s a litmus test.

If you cannot resist pressure from the supply management cartel, how will you be able to resist pressure from all the other powerful interest groups? Those that demand subsidies, tariffs, protection from competition, legal privilege, and various other special goodies from government, at the expense of 37 million Canadians? You won’t be able.

I have been absolutely clear on this: The People’s Party will propose policies that are good for ALL Canadians. It will resist pressure from interest groups. I know this can cost votes. But how can we restore a true democracy if nobody is willing to take this risk?

Andrew wants to keep playing that game. That’s why I called the Conservative Party “too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed.” The People’s Party is the principled alternative.

Exhibit 2: Immigration

We all agree that we are a country built on immigration. But mass immigration is causing a backlash everywhere.

What we need is a policy of sustainable immigration to fulfill Canada’s economic needs.

Our immigration policy should not aim to forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada, as radical proponents of multiculturalism want.

The vast majority of Canadians rightly expect immigrants to learn about our history and culture, master one of our official languages, and adopt widely shared Canadian values.

Under the Harper government, Canada welcomed on average 250,000 immigrants every year. Under the Liberals, that number is set to go up to 350,000, and perhaps even higher. Trudeau’s advisory council suggested we should go as high as 450,000 a year.

The more immigrants there are, the more difficult it will be to integrate them into our society, and the more social and cultural disruption it will bring.

49% of Canadians say they want fewer immigrants. I have been very clear I want to go back to the average of the Harper years. The Conservative Party under Andrew Scheer has not proposed any number. They want to do studies and decide later.

On issues such as immigration and multiculturalism, they are simply not willing to push back against the dominant left-wing narrative. They are afraid to create controversies.

I’m not afraid to tackle controversial issues. That’s why the People’s Party is the principled alternative.

Exhibit 3: Corporate welfare

Are you tired of paying taxes to bail out Bombardier, Chrysler and GM? And to fund superclusters, export development programs, technology adoption, and all kinds of other bureaucratic programs to support businesses?

Almost all economists agree that corporate welfare does not make our economy more productive. Either a company is well managed and profitable, and it does not need government help. Or it’s badly managed and unprofitable, and it should not get government help.

Abolishing corporate welfare should be one of the least controversial policies for a conservative party. It only serves to buy votes with taxpayers’ money.

I propose to abolish all corporate welfare programs, including regional development agencies. And lower taxes to all businesses instead.

Andrew Scheer never denounces corporate welfare. He has proposed instead to use these regional agencies more efficiently to buy votes, by naming a minister from the region for each one. On this issue again, the People’s Party is the principled alternative.

Exhibit 4: Climate change

The United Nations recently released another report announcing the end of the world within a few years unless we essentially shut down much of our economy.

I recognize that most scientists say that human activity is responsible for climate change. But there are also scientists saying other factors like the sun have more impact on climate change.

I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to decide who is right.

What I know is that we’re not going to destroy our economy. On the contrary, if global warming is to get worse, which is still uncertain, we must be richer so that we can better adapt to it. Only gradual technological change will allow us to transition to other sources of energy.

In any case, whatever we do here in Canada will have zero effect on global climate. The Liberal carbon tax is not only bad for our economy, it’s only hypocritical virtue-signalling.

Andrew Scheer is against the Liberals’ carbon tax. But the first thing he did after becoming leader last year was to whip his caucus to vote in favour of the Paris Accord on climate change. And he says he will soon have a plan to reach the Paris CO2 reduction targets.

The Paris Accord also commits Canada and other rich countries to transfer billions of dollars to poor countries to help them fight climate change. It’s a giant redistribution scheme.

I’m the only politician in Ottawa who promises to take Canada out of the Paris Accord. And who will not impose any new tax, regulation, or subsidies program on top of all those that exist to fight climate change.

Another proof that the People’s Party is the principled alternative.

Exhibit 5: Equalization

I know that’s one of your favourite topics! You’re fed up paying for this program only to see the billions of dollars go to other provinces. As a Quebecer, I can tell you I’m ashamed to live in a province that has been a beneficiary for half a century.

The equalization program is unfair for the provinces that never receive any money. And it’s unfair and inefficient for the recipient provinces because it is designed as a welfare trap that keeps them poorer.

It encourages them to keep taxes high and to intervene more in their economies. They don’t have as much incentive to make their economies more competitive because more private sector growth will lead to less equalization money.

Have you heard Andrew Scheer say something like this? No. And you won’t. He’s just too afraid to touch it. When the program’s formula was renewed without change this summer, I was the only politician in Ottawa who said anything.

I’m from Quebec, and I’m not afraid to open this debate. If this will not convince you that the People’s Party is the principled alternative, I don’t know what will.

There are many more issues where the People’s Party proposes solutions that challenge the status quo: 

• Abolish foreign aid and save the $5 billion we spend every year to help Canadians instead; 
• A foreign policy that focuses on the security and prosperity of Canadians – NOT on pleasing the dysfunctional United Nations; 
• Get rid of boutique tax credits and lower personal taxes; 
• Let provinces experiment with private delivery of health care within a publicly funded universal system, as European countries have done, so that we can eliminate long waiting lists; 
• Privatize Canada Post;
• Completely open the telecom and air travel sectors to foreign competition to get better services and lower prices. 

On these and many other issues, the Conservative Party has nothing specific to offer. 

Defending clear principles

On the masthead of my blog, there was for many years a sentence that summarizes my approach to politics: “If we want conservative principles to win the battle of ideas, we have to defend them openly, with passion and conviction.”

I have been defending the same small-government principles since I entered politics 12 years ago. The specific policies I proposed during the leadership campaign are the same ones that form the basis of the People’s Party platform.

With me, you know what you’re getting.

What about Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives? A year and a half after becoming leader, Scheer is still an unknown quantity. Most Canadians don’t know who he is and what he really stands for. The party has to run ads on TV to make sure Canadians have some idea of who he is. 

We know he’s against the carbon tax, against illegal migrants, and in favour of pipelines. That’s fine, we all agree with this. But what else?

The Conservative Party still has no platform for next year’s election. They keep saying they will unveil bits and pieces of it in the coming months.

Do you know why it’s not ready? It’s because they are still doing polls and focus groups, that’s why. It’s not about principles, it’s about pandering.

They’re trying to determine the types of promises to specific groups and voter segments that will bring them the most votes. And the buzzwords that will get the most positive reactions.

It’s all about election gimmicks. That’s how the Conservatives do politics. Just like the Liberals.

My approach is the exact opposite. I believe we must be out there, all the time, with the same straightforward ideas and policies. Before, during and after the elections.

That’s how more Canadians will get to understand them, agree with them, and support them.

That’s how we push back against political correctness. Against the predominant left-wing narrative that tries to portray our ideas as illegitimate.

Scheer will never be an effective salesman for conservative ideas.

Don’t take my word for it. Take his.

Last week, in a Toronto Sun interview, Scheer said that the Liberals have moved so far to the left that, and I quote: “We have an opportunity to say that we are a pragmatic centrist party with room for lots of different views on lots of different issues.”

Yep. Pragmatic. Centrist. Lots of different views. No principle. No coherent direction. Whatever you want, he will give it to you.

Does this sound like the true conservative solutions that you want to hear about? I don’t think so.

He certainly has a point. The NDP has become so far left that they’ve dropped out of the political spectrum. The Liberals are the new left. The Conservatives are moving to the center to replace them.

This means that the People’s Party is now the only party occupying the right. The People’s Party is the principled alternative.

Conclusion

I hope that by now, you are at least convinced that there are major differences between the Conservative Party and the People’s Party.

And that if you want to support a party that will defend true conservative principles, you have to vote for us.

There is another argument that many people are still raising: Only the Conservatives are strong enough to win. Voting for the People’s Party will split the vote and help Trudeau be re-elected.

Let’s look at the facts.

Despite Trudeau’s disastrous record, despite the India trip, the deficits bigger than promised, the attacks on small businesses, the carbon tax, the illegal migrants crisis, the various ethical scandals; despite all of this, the Liberals are still ahead in the polls. Scheer has been behind Trudeau in almost every poll over the past year and a half.

He’s no salesman for true conservative ideas. And he’s a weak salesman for pragmatic, centrist ideas. He’s simply not going to win.

While the Conservative Party is stagnating, the People’s Party is growing fast. We’re not in the 1980s and early 1990s anymore, before the Internet, when it took years and years for the Reform Party to get established. What took years then takes weeks today.

We’re going to have associations in every riding before the end of this year. Candidates in every riding will be chosen early next year. We will be ready.

A lot can happen within a year. Emmanuel Macron left the Socialist Party and founded a new one a year before he was elected president of France.

So, I’m telling you. You can have both: getting rid of Trudeau, and electing a true conservative party to replace Justin Trudeau next year.

Vote for your values and principles. Vote for what you believe in. AND vote strategically. Choose the principled alternative, the People’s Party.

Thank you.

Au cours des derniers mois, j’ai soulevé des enjeux de politique publique qui, à mon avis, sont d’une importance cruciale pour l’avenir de notre pays. C’est mon travail de le faire en tant que député.

De plus, en tant que député conservateur, il est de mon devoir de contribuer aux débats et de proposer des solutions dans une perspective conservatrice. Sinon, quel est l’intérêt d’être impliqué en politique?

Je suis en politique pour défendre des idées, de vraies idées conservatrices. Parce que je me soucie passionnément de l’avenir du Canada. Parce que je sais qu’une philosophie conservatrice qui s’appuie sur la liberté et le libre marché offre les meilleures solutions pour que notre société soit plus prospère, plus sûre et plus pacifique.

Toutefois, la position de mon parti sur plusieurs questions m’a convaincu que sous son leadership actuel, il a pratiquement abandonné ses principes conservateurs fondamentaux.

Je n’arrive toujours pas à comprendre comment un parti censé défendre le libre marché appuie un petit cartel qui fait augmenter artificiellement le prix du lait, du poulet et des œufs pour des millions de consommateurs canadiens.

Mais surtout, la gestion de l’offre est devenue l’un des principaux obstacles à un accord avec les États-Unis sur l’ALÉNA. Les ex-chefs conservateurs Brian Mulroney et Rona Ambrose sont d’accord pour mettre cette question sur la table de négociation.

Malgré cela, le Parti conservateur s’est rangé derrière le gouvernement libéral. Il appuie également les mesures tarifaires de représailles du gouvernement libéral, même si cela va nuire à nos entreprises et à nos consommateurs. Même si le Canada n’a aucune chance réaliste de remporter une guerre commerciale avec un voisin dix fois plus gros. Même si nous pourrions relancer les négociations avec succès si nous mettons la gestion de l’offre sur la table, et si nous acceptons l’offre du président Trump de négocier un démantèlement de toutes les barrières commerciales, comme l’a fait l’Union européenne.

Les libéraux font de la petite politique avec ce dossier d’une importance cruciale. Ils mettent en danger les 20 % de notre économie qui dépendent des échanges commerciaux avec les États-Unis ainsi que la prospérité future du Canada.

Plutôt que de se comporter comme un conservateur de principe et de défendre les intérêts du Canada et des Canadiens, Andrew Scheer a adopté la même position que les libéraux de Trudeau. On m’a expliqué que les sondages internes montrent que la réponse des libéraux à Trump est populaire. Et que dans six mois, si les sondages changent, la position du parti pourrait aussi changer.

La même chose s’est produite en réaction à mes tweets sur la diversité et le multiculturalisme. C’est un autre débat crucial pour l’avenir de notre pays. Voulons-nous souligner nos différences ethniques et religieuses et les exploiter pour acheter des votes, comme le font les libéraux? Ou insister sur ce qui nous unit et sur les valeurs qui garantissent la cohésion sociale?

Tout comme dans d’autres sociétés occidentales aux prises avec ce problème, un grand nombre de Canadiens, et certainement la grande majorité des conservateurs, craignent que nous allions dans la mauvaise direction. Mais il n’est pas politiquement correct de soulever de telles questions.

Au lieu de mener le débat et de repousser les accusations injustes, Andrew Scheer a choisi d’éviter la controverse. Lui et plusieurs de mes collègues m’ont désavoué. Ils ont tellement peur des critiques de la gauche et des médias qu’ils préfèrent laisser tomber des millions de partisans conservateurs à travers le pays qui voudraient que nous nous attaquions à ce problème.

Lorsque le gouvernement libéral a récemment renouvelé la formule de péréquation injuste et inefficace pour cinq ans, j’ai été le seul à critiquer cette décision. Pas un mot de mes collègues conservateurs.

Un parti conservateur qui soutient le libre marché devrait également préconiser la fin du « b.s. » d’entreprises. Ce n’est pas seulement une question de principe, cela pourrait aussi être populaire si nous défendons cette position de manière cohérente. Les Canadiens en ont assez de payer des impôts pour renflouer Bombardier, Ford et d’autres entreprises.

Au lieu de reprendre cette idée, Andrew Scheer a annoncé qu’il nommerait un ministre régional pour toutes les agences de développement régional du pays, par opposition à un seul ministre pour les superviser, comme c’est le cas actuellement. Il veut un ministre du Québec pour distribuer des subventions au Québec, un ministre de l’Atlantique pour distribuer des subventions dans les provinces atlantiques, et ainsi de suite.

La solution conservatrice devrait être d’abolir ces agences qui gaspillent notre argent. Ce qu’Andrew Scheer propose, c’est de les rendre plus efficaces pour acheter des votes avec l’argent des contribuables.

Comment pouvons-nous nous attendre à ce que ce parti adopte des réformes conservatrices une fois au pouvoir, s’il ne peut même pas formuler une position claire et la défendre avant qu’il ne soit élu? Je suis maintenant convaincu que ce que nous obtiendrons si Andrew Scheer devient premier ministre ne sera qu’une version plus modérée du désastreux gouvernement Trudeau.

Au cours de la dernière année, j’en suis graduellement venu à la conclusion que ce parti est trop corrompu, intellectuellement et moralement, pour être réformé.

Je sais pertinemment que beaucoup de membres du caucus s’opposent en privé à la gestion de l’offre. Mais acheter des votes dans quelques circonscriptions clés est plus important que de défendre les intérêts de tous les Canadiens.

Toute la stratégie du parti repose sur la politique identitaire, le racolage de divers groupes d’intérêt et l’achat de votes avec des promesses, exactement comme le font les libéraux.

Le Parti conservateur tente d’éviter les questions importantes, mais controversées, qui préoccupent les conservateurs et les Canadiens en général. Il refuse d’articuler une philosophie cohérente pour soutenir ses prises de position.

Chaque déclaration publique est testée avec des sondages et des groupes de discussion. Le résultat est une série de platitudes qui n’offensent personne, mais qui ne veulent rien dire non plus et qui ne motivent personne.

Andrew Scheer n’arrête pas de parler de sa « vision conservatrice positive ». Mais personne ne sait en quoi consiste cette vision.

Le Parti conservateur a abandonné les conservateurs. Il ne les représente plus. Et il n’a rien de substantiel à offrir aux Canadiens à la recherche d’une solution de rechange politique.

Si nous voulons que les principes conservateurs gagnent la bataille des idées, nous devons les défendre ouvertement, avec passion et conviction.

C’est ce que je veux faire. Et c’est pourquoi, à compter d’aujourd’hui, je ne suis plus membre du Parti conservateur du Canada. Je veux faire de la politique autrement. Je trouverai une autre façon de donner la parole à des millions de Canadiens. Et je continuerai à lutter pour la liberté, la responsabilité, l’équité et le respect.

Since I left my Conservative colleagues and announced I would be creating a new party last week, I have been accused of being a sore loser and only interested in my own ego, of being excessively obsessed with the issue of supply management and of splitting the conservative vote — guaranteeing Justin Trudeau’s re-election.

To understand my real motives, my critics should read up on “public choice theory.” Developed by James Buchanan, who won a Nobel prize for economics in 1986, it explains how interest groups hijack political debates and capture politicians, winning huge benefits in the form of subsidies, trade protection, fiscal or legal privileges and other favourable regulations. They are willing to devote enormous lobbying effort and large amounts of money to get them.

Of course, ordinary taxpayers ultimately have to pay for these benefits. But a favour worth millions, even billions, of dollars to an interest group may cost only a few dollars to each individual taxpayer. Why would anyone make the effort to understand, let alone oppose, complex government policy? It’s just not worth it. As public choice theory explains, “rational ignorance” is a much better default mode.

This dynamic, of “concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs,” explains why we have so many bad policies that are obviously not in the public’s interest, why it is so difficult to reform such policies, and why government keeps growing: The number of groups a politician can pander to in order to buy votes is endless.

When I became Industry minister in 2006, I was squarely confronted with this dilemma. The Conservative Party was then totally reconciled to corporate subsidies; opposing them in the 2004 election had made it difficult to compete with Paul Martin, who was promising government money to various industries. There was no point in arguing. I concentrated on other files where I could have an impact, like telecom deregulation. And whenever there was a big corporate welfare announcement to make, I asked one of my colleagues to do it for me. They thought I was doing them a favour. The reverse was true.

Expressing my doubts publicly did not go down well. Some may remember that, in 2010, I publicly broke ranks with my colleagues from the Quebec City area who were pushing our government to subsidize a new sports amphitheater in the city. They had seized on this popular project to … What else? Buy votes. They were furious at me. I could mention the Bombardier bailout and many other similar cases.

Of course, the mother of all political hijackings is the ridiculous influence the small supply management lobby for dairy, poultry and eggs has managed to exert over every political party and every politician in Canada. Should we be surprised that it had 25 lobbyists at the Conservative convention in Halifax last weekend?

Beyond the importance of this issue at the NAFTA negotiations, the reason I have focused on supply management so much is that it is a litmus test: If you let yourself be manipulated by such a small cartel, how will you be able to resist other interest groups and make the right decisions for all Canadians? Simply, you won’t.

This is what I have been concerned with for the past 12 years: How to reconcile my desire to serve the public with a political dynamic entirely dominated by pandering and vote-buying strategies. Conservatives play that game as much as the Liberals, even though it directly contradicts the small-government, free-market principles the party purports to defend.

As I said when I resigned, I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot be reformed and that if I want to do politics differently, I need to do it elsewhere.

How do I plan to do this? By systematically reversing the dynamic described by public choice theory. That is, by taking positions based on principles I believe in and that accord with what I think is the public interest; and by resisting pressure from interest groups seeking favours, despite the short-term political cost.

I recognize this is a risky enterprise. It certainly explains why none of my caucus colleagues were interested in joining me. But the payoff for Canadians could be huge.

And what gives me hope is that with the Internet, it is now much easier and less costly to find relevant information and mobilize around an issue. A small group of motivated citizens can potentially have as much influence as a lobby group spending millions of dollars.

I know many Canadians are fed up with the traditional way of doing politics. We’ll see if enough of them are ready to follow me.

Maxime Bernier
National Post, September 1st, 2018

Over the past few months, I have been raising policy issues which I believe are crucially important for the future of our country. This is my job as a Member of Parliament.

Moreover, it is my duty, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, to contribute to debates and to offer policy solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what is the point of being involved in politics?

I am in politics to defend ideas, real conservative ideas. Because I passionately care about Canada’s future. Because I know that the free-market conservative philosophy has the best solutions to ensure our society is more prosperous, secure, and peaceful.

However, my party’s stand on several issues have convinced me that under the current leadership, it has all but abandoned its core conservative principles.

I still cannot understand how a party that is supposed to defend free markets supports a small cartel that artificially increases the price of milk, chicken and eggs for millions of Canadian consumers.

More importantly, supply management has become one of the main stumbling blocks to an agreement with the United States on NAFTA. Former Conservative leaders Brian Mulroney and Rona Ambrose agree that it should be put on the table.

But the Conservative Party has been siding with the Liberal government. It also supports the retaliatory tariffs of the Liberal government, even though this is going to hurt our businesses and consumers. Even though Canada has no realistic chance of winning a trade war with a neighbour ten times larger. Even though we could successfully relaunch the negotiations if we put supply management on the table, and if we accept President Trump’s offer to negotiate a dismantling of all barriers, as the European Union has done.

The Liberals are playing politics with this crucially important trade file. They are endangering the 20% of our economy that depends on trade with the U.S., and Canada’s future prosperity.

But instead of leading as a principled Conservative and defending the interests of Canada and Canadians, Andrew Scheer is following the Trudeau Liberals. I was told that internal polls are showing that the Liberals’ response to Trump is popular. And that in six months, if the polls change, the party’s stand may change too.

The same thing happened in reaction to my tweets on diversity and multiculturalism. This is another crucial debate for the future of our country. Do we want to emphasize our ethnic and religious differences, and exploit them to buy votes, as the Liberals are doing? Or emphasize what unites us and the values that can guarantee social cohesion?

Just like in other Western societies grappling with this issue, a large number of Canadians, and certainly the vast majority of Conservatives, are worried that we are heading in the wrong direction. But it’s not politically correct to raise such questions.

Instead of leading the debate and pushing back against all the unfair accusations, Andrew Scheer chose to avoid the controversy. He and several of my colleagues disavowed me. They are so afraid of criticism by the Left and the media that they prefer to let down millions of supporters across the country who would like us to tackle this issue.

When the Liberal government recently renewed the unfair and inefficient equalization formula for another five years, I was the only one to criticize it. Not a word from my Conservative colleagues.

A Conservative party that supports free markets should also advocate the end of corporate welfare. It is not only the principled thing to do, it could also be popular if we defend it in a consistent way. Canadians are tired of paying taxes to bail out Bombardier, Ford and other businesses.

Instead of taking up this idea, Andrew Scheer announced that he would name a regional minister for all the regional development agencies in the country, as opposed to having only one minister overseeing them as is the case now. He wants a minister from Quebec to distribute subsidies to Quebec, a minister from Atlantic Canada to distribute subsidies to Atlantic Canada, and so on.

The conservative solution should be to abolish these wasteful agencies. What Andrew Scheer proposes is to make them more efficient at buying votes with taxpayers’ money.

How can we expect this party to adopt any conservative reform when it comes to power, if it cannot even articulate a clear stand and defend them before it is elected? I am now convinced that what we will get if Andrew Scheer becomes prime minister is just a more moderate version of the disastrous Trudeau government.

I have come to realize over the past year that this party is too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed.

I know for a fact that many in the caucus privately oppose supply management. But buying votes in a few key ridings is more important than defending the interests of all Canadians.

The whole strategy of the party is to play identity politics, pander to various interest groups and buy votes with promises, just like the Liberals.

The Conservative Party tries to avoid important but controversial issues of concern to Conservatives and Canadians in general. It is afraid to articulate any coherent philosophy to support its positions.

Every public declaration is tested with polls and focus groups. The result is a bunch of platitudes that don’t offend anybody, but also don’t mean anything and don’t motivate anyone.

Andrew Scheer keeps talking about his “positive Conservative vision.” But nobody knows what that vision is.

The Conservative Party has abandoned conservatives. It does not represent them anymore. And it has nothing of substance to offer Canadians looking for a political alternative.

If we want conservative principles to win the battle of ideas, we have to defend them openly, with passion and conviction.

That is what I want to do. And this is why as of today, I am no longer a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to do politics differently. I will find another way to give a voice to millions of Canadians. And I will continue to fight for Freedom, Responsibility, Fairness and Respect.

Cette semaine, une délégation européenne s’est rendue à Washington pour discuter de questions commerciales.

La veille, le président Trump a tweeté qu’il avait « une idée pour eux. Les États-Unis et l’Union européenne devraient supprimer tous les tarifs, barrières au commerce et subventions ! On pourrait enfin appeler ça du libre marché et du commerce équitable! »

Il avait fait la même offre au Canada lors du sommet du G7 de Charlevoix en juin. Mais le gouvernement libéral l’a ignorée.

Au lieu de cela, Trudeau a essayé de jouer au dur en déclarant que « les Canadiens ne se laisseront pas faire », et peu de temps après, les relations entre les deux pays se sont détériorées encore plus.

En tant que conservateurs en faveur de l’économie de marché, nous croyons au libre-échange.

Je pense que nous devrions prendre l’offre de Trump au sérieux, tout mettre sur la table et voir jusqu’où nous pouvons négocier. TOUT.

Fini les vaches sacrées et des protections pour tel ou tel autre secteur. Fini les gros chèques distribués par des politiciens essayant d’acheter des votes. Un vrai libre-échange.

Les avantages seraient énormes pour tout le monde.

Certaines personnes continuent de dire que mon approche ne marchera jamais. Que Trump est trop imprévisible, qu’il se comporte de manière irrationnelle, qu’on ne peut lui faire confiance.

Eh bien, savez-vous quoi ?

Mercredi, les États-Unis avaient déjà conclu un accord avec la délégation européenne pour travailler à l’ÉLIMINATION DE TOUTES LES BARRIÈRES COMMERCIALES.

Et le gouvernement américain s’est engagé à résoudre la question des tarifs sur l’acier et l’aluminium.

La menace d’une guerre commerciale entre les deux parties s’est atténuée.

En tant que pays le plus dépendant du commerce avec les États-Unis, comment se fait-il que nous soyons incapables d’obtenir ce genre d’accord pour renouveler l’ALÉNA ?!

Pourquoi ne montrons-nous pas que nous sommes sérieux en mettant la gestion de l’offre sur la table, au lieu d’entrer dans une guerre commerciale que nous ne pouvons pas gagner ?

En réalité, ceux qui disent que ça ne marchera pas ne veulent pas accepter l’offre de Trump et négocier un véritable libre-échange.

Ils aiment les gros gouvernements. Ils aiment l’ingérence bureaucratique et les industries protégées.

Négocier un véritable libre-échange menacerait tout cela, alors ils cherchent des raisons pour ne pas le faire.

Je suis le seul politicien à Ottawa qui dit que nous devrions nous asseoir avec Trump et entamer des négociations constructives, au lieu de jouer à un jeu politique dangereux avec le 20 % de notre économie qui dépend du commerce avec les États-Unis.

Vous pouvez regarder une interview (en anglais) que j’ai donnée à BNN Bloomberg pour sensibiliser plus de gens à ce message.

Si vous aimez mon approche envers le libre-échange, soutenez mes efforts pour convaincre plus de Canadiens.

Merci beaucoup,
– Maxime

Did you read the news this week about the western chorus frog on the South Shore of Montreal?

Well, a Federal Court ruling has confirmed that Ottawa can prevent any development on private land to protect this frog, and any other species at risk.

But most disturbing is that the judge ruled that the government is not obliged to compensate the owner of this land.

Everyone wants to protect species at risk.

Our grandiose nature is one of Canada’s greatest attractions and we must take care of it. But not by sacrificing our most basic rights and prosperity.

The government should not be able to seize private property without compensation.

This decision is appalling, but it is part of a strong trend towards more and more repressive and costly environmental legislation.

In recent years, environmental activists have successfully blocked pipeline projects that will cost our economy tens of billions of dollars.

Thousands of jobs are threatened in the forest industry because of increasingly stringent regulations.

Conservation of the environment is certainly part of a conservative vision.

On the other hand, radical environmentalism is a regressive and destructive ideology. It aims to give the State the power to put an end to all forms of development and to control our lives on the grounds that everything has an impact on the environment.

Are we heading towards a green tyranny?

If you too are concerned about this situation, help me fight for your property rights.

You know I want to abolish corporate welfare. I hope we’ll be able to get rid of it one day.

But until then, the least we could expect is that when the government loans money to businesses, Canadian taxpayers be allowed to know about the terms and conditions, and if those loans have been repaid or not.

That’s why I introduced bill C-396 several weeks ago.

This bill, if adopted, would have ensured transparency for government handouts to corporations.

For example, Bombardier received a $275-million “repayable” loans from the federal government a few months ago.

When I asked the Minister what the terms and conditions of that loan were, I was told “it is secret.”

Canadians have a right to know where their money is going.

They should be able to know when the loans aren’t repaid.

They should know when the Liberals are trying to trick them by saying they’re giving a loan, when in fact it’s a subsidy.

The Liberals promised us more transparency during the last election campaign. But guess what? They voted AGAINST bill C-396.

Are they hiding something from us?

There will never be more transparency in Ottawa unless someone who really believes in it keeps up the pressure. That’s why I need your help to fight for government transparency and against corporate welfare.