Let me tell you about something crazy that is going on.

Do you know about the Quebec Federation of Maple Syrup Producers? It operates similarly to the old Canadian Wheat Board but for maple syrup.

It’s an organization that has the monopoly on maple syrup sales in the province of Quebec and forces all producers to sell their product to ONE single buyer. Itself.

A recent report ordered by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food described the Federation as « the OPEC of maple syrup. »

It’s not just a Quebec issue. The Federation got their power thanks to a decree by the federal government. And all Canadians are paying more for maple syrup because of this cartel.

This crazy story even made it to Netflix; it’s in episode 5 of the documentary series “Dirty Money.” A maple syrup producer from my riding of Beauce who was interviewed for this Netflix episode can tell you all about this cartel.

Angèle Grenier thought that we lived in a free country where there is free trade between provinces, as article 121 of our Constitution guarantees.

“121.All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.”

But this so-called “Federation” doesn’t care about our freedoms. They sued her because she sold her syrup in New Brunswick herself instead of going through them. They say she is an outlaw because of that. She’s had to pay HUGE fines. Over $300,000 in total plus $150,000 in lawyers’ fees.

From my point of view, the law should be changed so that it is the Federation, not people like Angèle Grenier, who will be considered an outlaw. In a free society, such controlling and authoritarian organizations should not exist.

Many other honest and hard-working maple syrup producers are being persecuted like Angèle Grenier.

We need to defend the ordinary people who are being bullied by CARTELS with the support of government bureaucrats.

I am one of the only MPs actively talking about this and other critical issues in Ottawa. Today, I’m asking you to help me uphold article 121 of our Constitution.

Donate $121, $12.10 or $1.21, or whatever you can today.

DONATE $121.00
DONATE $12.10
DONATE $1.21

Thanks for your continuous and generous support,
– Maxime

Apple will build a second campus and hire 20,000 workers in a $350 billion pledge.

Apple’s announcement is another spectacular example of the benefits of business tax cuts. This is in addition to Walmart, which announced last week that it will increase the minimum wage of its employees to $11 ($13.75 CAD). This is what happens when you cut taxes: businesses keep more of their revenues and can use it to boost their employees’s wages and benefits, lower prices for their clients, increase investment, reward their shareholders, and grow the economy. That’s how a free economy works.

Canada will lose its competitiveness if we don’t follow. The Liberals are unsuited to deal with this challenge with their tax-and-spend ideology.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/pittsburgh-company-news/2018/01/17/Taking-advantage-of-the-Republican-tax-law-Apple-will-build-a-second-campus-and-hire-20-000-workers-in-a-350-billion-pledge/stories/201801170226

The U.S. Department of Commerce decision to impose a 220% levy on Bombardier’s C Series planes is very bad news for the Canadian industry and workers.

But Ottawa is responsible for giving Boeing ammunitions against Bombardier.

The liberal government should never have given $372M in aid to Bombardier with undisclosed clauses that can be interpreted as a subsidy.

Subsidies are bad economics, unfair for taxpayers and other companies, and inefficient when trying to solve international disputes. It’s true that Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers also get subsidies.

But Canada will never win a subsidy race with economies 10 times bigger than we are.

It’s time to renegotiate an expanded ASU international treaty to limit government aid to aircraft manufacturers, as proposed by the MEI.

According to a new Statistics Canada study, trade between provinces corresponds to level that would be expected if 6.9% tariff were imposed. This is largely due to the existence of regulatory barriers that prevent Canadians from buying, selling and working with the same ease in every province. From an economic point of view, interprovincial barriers have the same effect as customs tariffs: they discourage trade.

According to the study, when a similar analysis is applied to the United States, there was no evidence that state borders impede inter-state trade. » Canada is in an abnormal situation: 150 years after Confederation, Canada still doesn’t have an integrated economy.

These ridiculous interprovincial barriers make us poorer. Negotiations that have been going on for decades between governments have not succeeded in getting rid of them, and Ottawa never took its responsibilities to apply article 121 of the Constitution, which guarantees free trade between provinces. The Supreme Court will soon have a crucial opportunity to interpret article 121 more broadly and strike down barriers in the coming Comeau case.

We need more people and organizations defending the value of freedom in Canada and I very much support Conservative Futures efforts to do so within the larger conservative movement.

I would like today to briefly discuss three ideas with you: freedom, tenacity and popularity.

Freedom

Freedom is the fundamental value that draws us together. It is not an egotistic desire to do whatever we want without any constraint. That’s the perspective of those who believe they know what is best for us and who want to force us to adopt it.

Freedom is nothing less than the basis of our civilization.

Human dignity and equality of rights, social pluralism and cultural dynamism, scientific advancement and economic prosperity: all these achievements are impossible in a context where there is no freedom.

Tenacity

We are the defenders of civilization and we should not be afraid to affirm it.      

I believe we have the duty to be tenacious and persistent in the defence of individual freedom and personal responsibility, respect and fairness.

We have a duty to not hide anything from our fellow countrymen that we believe is necessary and true.

How many times have we taken a step back when faced with the false arguments of our critics and those who disparage us?

What is the point of having the best solutions, if we keep them to ourselves because we are afraid to displease others?

What is the point of embracing the cause of freedom, if we dare not fight for it with passion and conviction?

It’s up to us to encourage everyone to stand up for freedom, so that we can live in a society that is freer and more prosperous.

Popularity

We should not get discouraged because our ideas are not that popular today and are not shared by the majority of our fellow citizens.

Because an idea is not widely accepted does not mean it is not just and true; and an idea does not become just and true because it is popular.

The ideas of individual freedom and personal responsibility, respect and fairness are just and true and will become popular if we stick to our principles; if we continue to defend these universal values; if we remain true to our dream!

What is not popular today can become so tomorrow, whether it be a person or an idea.

This is what I want you to do, to stay true to your dreams and your convictions, because the future belongs to you and the cause of freedom will always triumph in the end!

Good morning. As I’m sure you know, one of my leadership campaign’s fundamental principles is freedom.

Conservatives believe in the freedom of the marketplace as the basis for human prosperity. It is also the basis for technological and societal advancement.

There is no clearer demonstration of this principle than in the impact that free trade has had on the world.  Both in terms of improving economic outcomes, and increasing freedom.

Conservatives have always had a strong record on free trade. Conservatives negotiated the historic North American Free Trade Agreement. 

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper was first elected as Prime Minister, Canada had free trade deals with five countries.  After his time in office, Canada had reached deals with 51 countries.

In order for Canada’s economy to be successful we must grow our trade relationships. We can no longer solely rely on our ties to the United States.

This is why our Government signed free trade deals with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clearly, the Trudeau Government must stop delaying and ratify these agreements.

But more must be done to expand Canada’s global economic reach.

According to the International Monetary Fund, China has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest economy.

I was pleased to be part of a Conservative Government that recognized this trend and adopted several measures to deepen our relations with this market.

Our Conservative Government achieved:

The first Chinese currency trading hub in the Americas;

An agreement which forms the legal basis for protecting Canadian investments in the Chinese market;

The “Canada-China Economic Complementarities Study”, which is the initial roadmap for launching free trade negotiations;

Securing Saskatchewan uranium sales to the Chinese market;

Allowing Chinese nationals to travel to Canada for leisure and allowing Canadian tourism operators to advertise in China; and

Expanded market access for Canadian beef products.

Today, we face an open invitation from China to launch free trade negotiations. This is an opportunity.

Justin Trudeau has decided to take a “go-slow” approach to trade with China. This will not help build Canada’s economy.

Consistent engagement – not hesitant engagement – means launching free trade negotiations now.

Otherwise, Canadian exports to China will continue to face tariffs in all sectors. Our competitors will enter the Chinese market tariff free and push Canadians out.

The pork farmer from Quebec will continue to face a tariff wall, and will be priced out of the Chinese market by Australian pork. 

The same story is true across all sectors, whether it is the beef farmer from Alberta, the technology producer from Ontario, or the mineral exporter from Yukon.

Canadian consumers will also face higher prices on goods imported from China.

This is particularly concerning for low income families who purchase a higher percentage of goods imported from China. 

Competitively priced imports not only benefit consumers at the retail level, they also reduce the input costs for Canadian manufacturing and make our economy more competitive.

The advantages of free trade explain why countries like Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Iceland have concluded free trade agreements with China.

It is why countries like Israel and Norway are currently in free trade negotiations.

If I am elected Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and ultimately Prime Minister of Canada, I will seek to expand trade.

First, I will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement with Europe are ratified immediately. 

I will expedite the current negotiations for a Canada-India Free Trade Agreement, and ensure that free trade negotiations are launched with Britain.

And the cornerstone of my plan for trade will be to immediately launch formal negotiations with China to secure a Canada-China Free Trade Agreement.

It is estimated that a Canada-China Free Trade Agreement would expand Canadian exports by $7.7 billion annually, increase Canadian household income by $5.7 billion annually, and create 25,000 well paying Canadian jobs.

It would also pave the way for deeper people-to-people relations that is important for many Canadians, particularly for those of Sino-Canadian origin.

Of course, we would not be signing any deal. There must be strict rules to ensure that the Chinese government will not raise indirect barriers that contradict the spirit of free trade. Any deal must clearly be in Canada’s national interest.

Those negotiations will be tough – but Conservatives know how to negotiate free-trade agreements.

Many Canadians, and many Conservatives, myself included, remain concerned about China’s record on the rule-of-law, labour, the environment, relations with its Asian neighbours, and on human rights. 

While there are no easy answers to fix these problems overnight, disengagement or hesitant engagement with China will not give Canadians a credible voice for reform and progress on these issues.

Consistent engagement will allow Canada to work more constructively with China to address these concerns.

Human rights will be better served by discussions with a partner that China takes seriously because their success is tied to our success.

We already trade for tens of billions of dollars every year with the Chinese. We can either deepen this relationship and benefit from it, or lose an opportunity and let the rest of the world exploit it.

Earlier this year, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall took the strong position of supporting free trade with China – and he was supported by all the Premiers in Western Canada.

It is a principled position that is supported by principled Conservatives. 

Because in the end, more free trade means more freedom and more prosperity.

Merci beaucoup.  Thank you very much.  I would be happy to take any questions.

———————————————-

Maxime Bernier is only candidate who can bring real free trade to Canada.

OTTAWA – For Maxime Bernier, the new Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) to be signed today in Toronto is a far cry from what Canadians should expect, 150 years after our Constitution outlawed trade barriers between provinces.
 
“Of course it’s a step in the right direction. Like stopping at STOP signs half the time instead of never, or driving though a village at 70 km/h instead of 100 km/h. It’s still unacceptable and a clear violation of rules. And it still means there will be accidents.”
 
And we know who the victims will be, declared Mr. Bernier, who announced exactly one year ago that he would seek the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, with “Respecting our Constitution” as one of the key planks in his platform. “The victims will continue to be business people trying to expand their market in other provinces, workers being prevented to work as they move within their own country, and all consumers having to pay more than they should for fewer products.”
 
A recent Senate report estimated that interprovincial barriers cost Canada’s economy as much as $50 billion to $130 billion each year. The CFTA still contains hundreds of pages of exceptions to the general rule that trade should be freed. It excludes major sectors such as alcohol, products under supply management, energy, forestry, financial services and a host of others.
 
“It’s frankly pathetic that provinces were under pressure to liberalize some areas because the recent signing of a free trade agreement with Europe will make it easier for European companies to do business here than for Canadian companies,” said Bernier. “150 years after Confederation, it’s a shame that we still don’t have real free trade within Canada.”
 
If he is elected leader and prime minister, the Beauce MP has proposed to establish an Economic Freedom Commission with the power to investigate breaches of article 121 of the Constitution by the provinces, to recommend arbitration, to help citizens and businesses prosecute their case, or to initiate legal action on its own.
 
“The problem has not been solved with this agreement. We shouldn’t be following constitutional rules only half of the time. Ottawa’s has a duty to apply the rules for internal commerce and I will take the necessary measures to apply them as prime minister,” concluded Mr. Bernier.

Canadian Firearms laws are broken, and I want to fix them.

At the whim of a bureaucrat, firearms are assigned new classifications.

Legally purchased firearms are being made illegal, even though no laws have changed.

This needs to stop.

The firearms laws are so complicated, and so convoluted, that they have become the perfect example of injustice in the name of justice.

To fix this, I propose we replace the current Firearms Act with clear legislation based on reason, not on fear.

Firearms ownership is part of our shared Canadian heritage. We are a country founded on the fur trade. This needs to be recognized.

I also recognize that we need to protect public safety and avoid the excesses that exist south of the border.

There are three main areas to look at when considering firearms legislation. Licensing; classification of firearms; and magazine sizes.

I do not propose that we replace our current licensing system. Instead, we should ensure that firearms safety courses are more readily available, especially in rural and remote areas.

I will double the length of firearms licenses from 5 to 10 years.

Firearms license-holders are automatically subjected to daily background checks. If a firearms license-holder commits a crime, his or her license is revoked. There is no need to go through the renewal process every 5 years.

We need to provide clear, non-arbitrary legislation for what constitutes a non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited firearm.

Firearms should not be classified based on how they look, but on how they function.

I propose the following classifications:

Non-Restricted:
(a) a firearm that is not a prohibited or restricted firearm.

Prohibited:
(a) a fully-automatic firearm,
(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted, is less than 660 mm in length.
(c) a firearm that is listed as prohibited prior to June 20, 2016.

Restricted:
(a) a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm,
(b) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,
(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise.

This is in line with the Simplified Classification System, adopted by Conservative members at the Policy Convention in Vancouver last year.

The current regulation of magazine sizes is irrational. Our internationally competitive shooters are forced to practice with magazines below standard capacity.

This makes no sense. It’s clear that those who are not inclined to follow the law will not be deterred by having to remove a rivet from a magazine.

My proposal would repeal the ineffective, and frankly nonsensical, magazine capacity restrictions.

The classification of firearms should not change by the whim of the RCMP, or cabinet. It should require a change in law through Parliament to re-classify a firearm.

To respect our Canadian tradition of firearms ownership, and the principle of fairness, I would have the Canadian government reimburse all firearms owners for their loss of property resulting from the implementation of Bill C-68, and any subsequent legislation that caused the confiscation of their legally purchased firearms.

This policy, like all my policies, is based on freedom and responsibility, fairness and respect.

I believe it is the right answer for firearms legislation in Canada.

Although they were presented by their supporters as measures to protect minorities from discrimination, a motion and a bill being debated in Parliament could seriously threaten free speech in our country. Having received many requests to clarify my position on these two issues, here are my reasons to oppose them. 

M-103

Two weeks ago, I tweeted that I opposed M-103 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986 ), a motion tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, whose goal is to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The motion is set to be debated and come to a vote in the coming days.

M-103 is not a bill: It’s not going to change any of the country’s laws or going to affect freedom of speech by itself. It’s just a motion, which expresses an opinion of Members of Parliament. That doesn’t mean there are no problems with it.

First of all, although it condemns all forms of religious discrimination, the motion only mentions specifically one religion, Islam. I don’t believe that is appropriate. More importantly, the term « islamophobia » is not defined in the motion.

If it means hate speech, intolerance and violence targeted at our peaceful and law-abiding fellow citizens who happen to be of Muslim faith, I am sure there is unanimity in favour of denouncing it. We were reminded recently with the killing at a mosque in Quebec City how ugly this form of intolerance can be.

There are already laws against this however. And that definition should not be taken for granted. There is a current in Islam, and not necessarily limited to radical islamists, that says nobody should criticize that religion or make fun of it. Just remember the controversy about the prophet Mohammed cartoons some years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy ).

In a recent column in the National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-how-long-until-my-honest-criticism-of-islamism-constitutes-a-speech-crime-in-canada ), columnist Barbara Kay raises a point that I too find troubling:

What I fear is that MP Iqra Khalid, who tabled M-103, may understand Islamophobia to mean what its original promoters, the 56 Muslim-majority bloc of the United Nations known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), say it means. The OIC wants to see the Cairo Declaration on Human rights become the template for Islamophobia policies everywhere. The Cairo Declaration asserts the superiority of Islam and defines freedom of speech according to Shariah law, which considers any criticism of Muhammad blasphemy.

The OIC is inching ever closer to realizing that goal. Many EU countries are seeking to criminalize Islamophobia by using “racism and xenophobia,” “public order” or “denigration” laws, which are essentially proxies for the Cairo Declaration.

Is this motion a first step towards restricting our right to criticize Islam? Given the international situation, and the fact that jihadi terrorism is today the most important threat to our security, I think this is a serious concern we have to take into account.

Free speech is a fundamental Canadian value. We should reaffirm everyone’s right to believe in and criticize whatever belief they want, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, atheism, or any other.

For this reason, I will vote against M-103 unless it is amended to remove the word “islamophobia.” And I encourage my Conservative colleagues to do the same.

C-16

Bill C-16 was passed by the House of commons last October and is now being debated in the Senate (https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ ). This Bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda to people who are distinguished by gender identity or expression.

I voted in favour of this Bill in the fall, because I am opposed to anyone being subjected to hate and being discriminated against on the basis of being part of any identifiable group.

However, in addition to the many Canadians who have discussed this issue with me, last week, I had the opportunity to chat with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson about this legislation and the consequences it will have for free speech.  And frankly, I was appalled.

Professor Peterson has said publicly that he refuses to use various pronouns such as “they” (not to refer to several people, but as a singular pronoun), “zir,” “hir,” or “ze” instead of “he” and “she.” These are pronouns that “non-binary” students, who refuse the usual categories of masculine and feminine, want used to describe them.

Because of his refusal, Prof. Peterson has received warning letters from the university, which says it amounts to discrimination against minorities. ( http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-respect-pronouns-stop-making-statements/ )

There has been a proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years (http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.n0ppMTvO.dpbs ). Some of these groups are not fighting for equality of rights and respect for sexual minorities. They are radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk. And they seem to have an undue influence on campuses across North America, including here in Canada.

Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Canadians. Prof. Peterson believes that if adopted, C-16 will, in conjunction with the Ontario Human Rights Code, become a clear threat to this right.

Any time a right is violated, our Constitution demands that such a violation can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. The Supreme Court has interpreted that in case law and developed what is called the Oakes test, which says that any violation of our rights must be proportional to the harm it seeks to correct.

C-16 does not meet that test. It could force Canadians to restructure the way they talk and say things they do not believe.

This crazy trend seems to be proliferating outside of universities too. Just a few weeks ago, management at Quebec’s Public Automobile Insurance Plan forbid its employees to use “Monsieur” or “Madame” when addressing its millions of clients after one transgender client made a complaint. Although in the process of becoming a woman, she was addressed as “Monsieur” because she still has a masculine name in official documents. (http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/01/25/la-saaq-interdit-a-des-employes-de-dire-monsieur-ou-madame )

We must protect minority groups against hate and discrimination.  But we also must ensure that we protect our most fundamental freedoms—including our freedom to speak our mind and to use common language without fearing legal consequences. 

I regret my decision to vote for Bill C-16.  If the vote were held again today, I would vote against it. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to stop it from becoming law. And if it does become law, as the next Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, I will repeal it.

Last Saturday, at the debate in Halifax, other candidates accused me of abandoning Atlantic Canada. They said that my proposal to freeze the equalization budget until we review its funding and the way the money is being distributed is going to hurt the region economically.

Of course, in the short term, some people might not like this idea. But transferring money from the rest of Canada to the Atlantic has been going on for decades. And if we do nothing, it will likely continue for several more decades. Shouldn’t we be thinking about solutions beyond the short term?

The question we should be asking is: How can we create the best conditions for Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs to create jobs and wealth? (Including in Newfoundland & Labrador, which hasn’t received equalization money for some years because of revenues from offshore oil, but still has a weak economy and very high unemployment.)

Equalization should not be a permanent program to keep whole regions and provinces poorer than the rest of the country. Unfortunately, that’s what it does.

Various studies have shown that it encourages the growth of the public sector in the recipient provinces, which bids away resources and workers from the private sector and weakens it. It encourages provincial governments 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.

Bigger governments, less competitive private businesses: That’s the recipe for economic stagnation.

Kevin O’Leary said last week that he would “force” provinces to adopt some policies that he favours, such as developing natural gas in Nova Scotia. And that he would be “very punitive” if they don’t comply. This is a totally arrogant and reckless approach, one that will bring back constitutional quarrels between Ottawa and the provinces.

My approach is not to impose Ottawa’s will on the provinces, but rather to reform the equalization program so that it provides the right incentives for economic development. I will respect the provinces and our Constitution.

A second very important change that needs to be made to help Atlantic Canada become more prosperous is to eliminate interprovincial trade and labour barriers. It’s a shame that after 150 years, our country is still not a unified market.

If you are a consumer, you can pay a fine for crossing a provincial border with too many beers, as happened to Gérard Comeau in New Brunswick. If you are a worker, you may need a new licence, or see your qualifications not recognized, when you go to work in another province. And if you are an entrepreneur, you may need more permits, have to go through bureaucratic loopholes, or simply face a closed door, when you try to export to another province.

A Senate committee estimated that these barriers may cost our economy up to $130 billion a year. That’s almost half the federal budget!

But it’s even more costly for small provinces with tiny markets that are more dependent on trade. They cannot benefit from the economies of scale of a larger market. It’s more difficult for their businesses to grow. And costlier for their consumers who can’t buy stuff produced elsewhere.

The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council released a report last October explaining why the region can’t afford these barriers. The study says removing all trade barriers between provinces could create gains as high as 3.3% of GDP, but that the gains would be more than double that for the Atlantic provinces at 7.6% of GDP.

Our Constitution says these barriers should not exist. Provinces have been talking and negotiating for decades. But why should we expect those who created the problem to solve it? We need a strong central government to systematically deal with this problem. I propose to create an Economic Freedom Commission with the power to take provinces to court when their regulations infringe upon your freedom.

Atlantic Canadians need real solutions, not paternalism. Instead of pandering to those who like the status quo, or adopting an authoritarian approach, we should be supporting those who are fighting for change. Like the people at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax who have been proposing sound policies for many years. Like Conservatives who are calling for less government and more free-market solutions at the provincial level.

That’s the vision I’m offering Atlantic Canadians, based on freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect. And I am hopeful many of them will embrace it so that Atlantic Canada can one day take its rightful place among the prosperous regions of our country.