When it was started in 1957, Canada’s equalization program had a noble intention: To ensure that Canadians from coast to coast have a similar level of service from their provincial government, whether they live in poorer or richer provinces. It was seen as a way to unite the country.

Unfortunately, that is not how it turned out. The program has had numerous unintended consequences. It is unfair and inefficient in multiple ways. And it is disuniting Canadians instead of uniting them.

During the past ten months, I have travelled across the country and spoken to people in all provinces. Many told me that because of this program, they feel that the federal government is not on their side. They feel that it creates tension between certain provinces. And that it discourages growth and necessary economic reforms.

Let me give you a few examples. With its strong economy and strong energy sector, Alberta has been for years a net contributor to the equalization program. Its citizens pay federal taxes to fund it, but the province never receives any of it.

However, Alberta’s economy has been severely contracting for two years in part because of the collapse in oil prices. Yet, the province will still not get a penny from equalization this year and next year.

The equalization formula uses two-year-old data and calculates an average of fiscal capacity over three years. Albertans are suffering but are still forced to help other provinces with economies in better shape fund their social programs. This is unfair.

Here is another example of unfairness and inefficiency. The equalization formula uses five criteria to determine a province’s fiscal capacity, including energy revenues. However, it doesn’t treat all forms of energy revenues the same way.

In the case of hydroelectricity, it does not use the market value of hydro power produced in Quebec and Manitoba, but rather the subsidized rate at which it is sold in local markets. Because of this, the two provinces appear poorer than they actually are and get more equalization money than they should.

These provinces are therefore encouraged to continue their policy of subsidizing their local customers instead of getting the full value for their energy, for example by exporting it. This whole situation is a mess from the point of view of good public policy. It’s unfair and inefficient.

There is a myth that equalization at least has the benefit of helping have-not provinces economically. But the opposite is true. It has created a poverty trap that prevents them from developing to their full potential.

I would argue that the biggest victims of the equalization program are in fact the citizens of provinces that have been on the receiving end for decades: Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI.

Quebec is the province that received the largest amount of money, $10 billion out of a total of $18 billion this year. But that’s because it has a much larger population. The other four actually get more money per capita and are even more dependent on federal support.

This economic reality is well documented. Think tanks in Canada, such as the Montreal Economic Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies have analysed it in detail in various studies.

These studies have shown that equalization money encourages the growth of the public sector in the recipient provinces, which bids away resources and workers from the private sector and weakens it.

Equalization money encourages recipient provinces 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.

The system is similar to badly designed welfare programs that used to discourage recipients from working, because they would then lose all their benefits and would be worse off than if they stayed on welfare. That’s what we call a poverty trap. These programs were reformed in the 1990s in the US and Canada and since then, the number of people on welfare has been drastically reduced.

It’s time to put an end to this unfair and inefficient equalization program.

It’s time to stop rewarding provincial governments for not adopting better economic policies.

It’s time to give hope and support to Conservatives fighting for free-market reforms and less government intervention in these provinces. Sending more money simply helps those who argue that there is no problem and who favour the status quo.

As leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and prime minister, I will propose first of all to freeze the envelope devoted to the equalization program.

Second, I will set up a parliamentary committee with the goal of reviewing that envelope, examining the current formula and proposing a new one. That new formula should avoid the welfare trap and perverse effects identified by economists. It should encourage provincial governments to take responsibility for their bad decisions, adopt the right pro-growth economic policies, and reduce their dependency on federal money, instead of the opposite.

Kevin O’Leary said earlier this week that he will “force” provinces to adopt some policies that he favours, such as developing natural gas in Nova Scotia. And that he will 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. It’s similar to the Liberal approach of imposing specific conditions to provinces on how to spend the money for health transfers, even though Ottawa has no jurisdiction in health care. But even worse.

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. My approach will respect the provinces and our Constitution. My approach will respect taxpayers from across the country who fund this program and demand results.

When I launched my leadership campaign last May, I made it clear that I would base all my policies on four key principles: Freedom, fairness, responsibility, and respect.

I have already announced a plan to lower taxes on individuals and corporations, to reduce the burden of regulation and to remove barriers to trade within Canada. With these policies, the so-called “have-not” provinces will have all the tools to unleash their economies.

This will not only benefit citizens in these provinces. It will make all Canadians more prosperous. And instead of breeding resentment between givers and receivers, it will make our country more united.

Thank you.

OTTAWA – Today, Maxime Bernier announced that he will bring fairness to Canada’s system of equalization payments to provinces.

Rather than continuing the welfare trap that our system of equalization has become, Bernier proposes to create an environment that encourages provinces to succeed and thrive, rather than relying on aid from other parts of the country.

Bernier’s plan has two key components:

• Immediately freeze the envelope of taxpayer dollars dedicated to equalization to stop the ever-increasing spending.
• Form a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to reviewing the equalization formula, proposing common sense solutions that will give provinces the right incentives to grow their economies.

These changes will help promote pro-growth changes in provinces, without imposing the will of Ottawa in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

KEY MAXIME BERNIER QUOTES:

“Equalization money encourages recipient provinces 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.”

“The system is similar to badly designed welfare programs that used to discourage recipients from working, because they would then lose all their benefits and would be worse off than if they stayed on welfare. That’s what we call a poverty trap”

“My approach will respect the provinces and our Constitution. My approach will respect taxpayers from across the country who fund this program and demand results”

Since the beginning of this leadership race, I have proposed several policies with the general goal of reducing the size of the federal government and focusing its interventions on its core functions.

Everyone understands what it means to have a smaller government when it comes to economic policy. But what about foreign policy?

The principles are actually the same. We can have a foreign policy that is based on the perspectives and interests of politicians, bureaucrats, international NGOs and special interest groups. A foreign policy that tries to attain unrealistic goals, that focuses on image and marketing, that ineffectively intervenes everywhere, and is frankly a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Or we can have a foreign policy entirely focused on the core goals of protecting the security and prosperity of Canadians, a policy where no resources are wasted on symbolic gestures that have no effect on the life of the average Canadian.

As Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, I witnessed first-hand how the international relations establishment has a set of priorities that are very different from those of ordinary Canadians.

They care about attending global conferences in trendy cities and getting photographed in the company of important foreign leaders. They worry about prestige and glamour, about Canada’s presence on the international scene even if that simply means having a tiny influence on events in parts of the world where we have almost no interest.

Whether it’s a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars to kick-starting Canada’s economy; or a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars on international organizations and development aid in other countries; it’s all the same. They are mostly furthering their own interests and wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money.

The Trudeau government’s foreign policy is a perfect example of this type of policy disconnected from the interests of Canadians. It is based on the same principles as its economic policy: The more the government intervenes, the more money it spends, the more structures and programs it creates, the more publicity it gets, the better it is.

The Liberals claim that since their election, “Canada is back” on the international scene. You bet it is! Just like it’s back in the economic sphere with its $30-billion deficit!

Only a month after his election in November 2015, Justin Trudeau announced that Canada would contribute $2.65 billion over the next five years to help developing countries tackle climate change.

This government is not only going to make us poorer by burdening our economy with a carbon tax and costlier regulations. It’s going to make us even poorer by sending billions of dollars to other countries for the same purpose.

That’s in addition to billions of dollars every year in development assistance that Canadian taxpayers are sending to various countries, a budget that the Liberals have promised to increase.

On security issues, the Trudeau government decided last year to scale down our military involvement with our allies against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Yet, fighting radical Islamic terrorists is directly linked to the security of Canadians.

Meanwhile, the government announced last summer that it would send 600 Canadian troops and spend half a billion dollars on a peacekeeping mission in Africa.

Canada has no strategic interest in that region. The conflicts there have no impact on our security. And it’s not even clear that there is any peace to keep, but the Liberals are trying to avoid this debate.

There is no reason to waste that money and to risk the lives of Canadian soldiers. No reason, except, from the point of the view of the Trudeau government, showing the foreign affairs establishment of other countries that “Canada is back” and lobbying for a seat at the United Nations Security Council.

For the Liberals, it’s more important to show off on the international stage than to protect the security and prosperity of Canadians.

We learned two weeks ago that senior foreign affairs bureaucrats even held a meeting to discuss how to use the Prime Minister’s image and his personal appeal to sell the world on the merits of the country’s return to UN peacekeeping missions. This is not a foreign policy based on the interests of Canadians; this is the low politics of selfie diplomacy!

As Prime Minister, I will ensure our country’s foreign policy will be refocused on the security and prosperity of Canadians.

First, my government will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure peace and security, especially against radical Islamic terrorism. We will only get involved in foreign conflicts when we have a clear strategic interest in doing so and when the security of Canadians is directly impacted.

We are not going to try and please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations, a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel as if it were the source of most conflicts in the world. Last year for example, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions targeting Israel, while passing one each about the human rights situation in North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

Second, my government’s foreign policy will be focused on liberalizing trade with as many countries and regions of the world as possible. This is not only the best way to ensure our prosperity, but also to help other countries develop and get richer, and to ensure a more peaceful world.

Third, my government will review the $5 billion that Canada spends every year on international assistance programs.

Our refocused international assistance will centre on core humanitarian efforts to fight global health crises and respond to emergencies such as major conflicts and natural disasters. Canada has to show solidarity and do its part to help when populations are dying and suffering in countries that don’t have the means to save them.

However, every year, we spend billions of dollars funding job training, farming technology, infrastructure building and various other programs to help develop other countries’ economies. We will phase out this development aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument.

Some First Nations communities in Canada have levels of poverty and basic services comparable to those of third world countries. There are low-income families in our country that pay taxes on their modest earnings. Instead of sending billions of dollars to other countries, we should use that money to cut taxes or help Canadians in need, here in Canada.

The case for development aid is extremely weak. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the world in the past few decades. However, there is no evidence that this was brought about by development aid.

Countries such as China, India, Vietnam and many others that are fast growing out of poverty did so because they got rid of their communist and socialist economic policies. They got richer because they adopted free-market policies, liberalized trade and private property rights, even if only imperfectly.

There is a direct link between the level of economic freedom and the level of development. This has been demonstrated without any doubt by various studies, including the economic freedom index of the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Countries that remain poor are those where governments are still crushing private initiative. Until they liberalize their economy and free their citizens, no amount of development aid will make a difference. On the contrary, it creates a cycle of dependency and often helps these governments stay in power.

Big government doesn’t solve problems, it creates problems. This is true in foreign policy as it is true in economic policy.

Under my leadership, Canada is not going to follow the received wisdom of the international relations establishment.

We are not going to send our soldiers to dangerous places where we have no strategic interests just to please the international bureaucracy at the United Nations.

We are not going to waste taxpayers’ money on development aid just because other countries do it.

The role of government is to protect its citizens and to allow them to flourish and prosper. This is going to be the focus of our action when I am Prime Minister.

Thank you.

Immigration has become a very contentious issue in politics. We’ve seen in recent years the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe. It featured prominently in the U.S. presidential election. And it has become part of the debate in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race.

Canada has always been a country largely open to immigration, because of its vastness and its relative youth. I believe that by and large, our immigration policy has been very successful. But we are not immune to the conflicts and social tensions happening elsewhere.

We can avoid these tensions if we stay away from ideological extremes and go back to a fundamental principle: The overarching objective of Canada’s immigration policy should be to fulfill the economic needs of our country.

In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.

Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.

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 such as equality of men and woman, tolerance for diversity and respect for Canadian law.

Immigrants are expected to integrate in our society, not to live in ghettos and try to replicate the way of life of their country of origin in Canada.

Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.

This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.

I am even more opposed to the proposal made by the government’s advisory council a few months ago to increase it to 450,000, which Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum said could be adopted at some point in the future.

At too high a level, immigration ceases to be a tool to economically benefit Canadians, and it turns instead into a burden. It becomes essentially a policy of social engineering for ideological purposes.

On the basis of these principles, here are the general policies I intend to pursue if I become Prime Minister.

Given that the main objective of immigration is to fulfill the economic needs of Canada, I would bring back the number from 300,000 to 250,000 as it was on average under the Harper government.

I would streamline the process for hiring specialized workers abroad. I would also put slightly more emphasis on economic immigration and slightly reduce the categories of family reunification and refugees.

It is important for New Canadians to be able to reunite with their families. This is already a large part of our immigration policy and will continue to be so. As well, Canada has to play its part in welcoming refugees from troubled areas of the world. But these two categories of immigrants bring less economic benefits to Canada than the category of economic immigrants. Welcoming refugees is actually very expensive.

To ensure our security, I would increase resources for CSIS, the RCMP and Canadian Immigration and Citizenship to do background checks on all classes of immigrants, including more face-to-face interviews if deemed necessary.

And finally, I would stop our reliance on the United Nations for refugee selection. Civil society groups that work on the ground have a much better grasp of who could successfully integrate into Canada than a big international bureaucracy. We should rely instead on private sponsorship, including by faith-based organizations. The Liberals are strangling this to make room for poorly delivered state sponsorship.

My campaign is based on free markets and small government principles. I am opposed to big government policies in all spheres of life.

Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.

For a sound monetary policy that protects Canadians from inflation and financial crashes

Maxime Bernier

December 15, 2016

A few weeks ago, the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance announced that they were renewing the Bank’s mandate of a 2% inflation target for another five years. This news did not get much attention.

Monetary policy is, for most people, a very technical, difficult and boring issue. That is unfortunate because it is also a crucial issue for our economic well-being. It determines the level of inflation and how much we can buy with our dollars. How much we pay for imports and for our mortgages. It also plays a key role in influencing market crashes, economic crisis, and long-term growth. 

That’s why it is very important for anybody who aspires to lead this country to have an understanding of monetary policy, and to tell the public what they plan on doing.

Inflation at 2% a year may seem small, but it means that prices double every 35 years. It means that the dollar in your pocket is buying less and less goods every year.

The reason why overall prices constantly go up is not because businesses are greedy, or because wages go up, or because the price of oil goes up. Ultimately, only the central bank is responsible for creating the conditions that cause prices to rise by printing more and more money.

As even the former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke admitted, inflation is the equivalent of a tax. Inflation eats away at our purchasing power, our revenues and our savings. It forces constant adjustments in long-term planning and distorts relative prices and investment decisions.

Most economists, including those at the Bank of Canada, are aware of this. When its mandate was previously renewed in 2011, the Bank carried several studies on the advantages of having a lower inflation rate target.

As Mark Carney, the governor at the time, said in a speech in November of that year: “The Bank’s research has generally found that the further benefits from reducing these distortions imply an optimal rate of inflation closer to, or even slightly below, zero.”

However, the bank at that time decided to stick to its 2% inflation target for one major reason: To preserve its ability to intervene more forcefully in a period of crisis.

With an inflation target of 0%, interest rates would tend to be lower in normal times than with inflation at 2%. The Bank would then have less leverage to push them even lower to stimulate the economy, because it is difficult to go below 0%. The Bank prefers to keep an inflation target higher because interest rates will also be higher and it will more ammunition to fight an economic downturn, like in 2008-2009.

That was the theory. Now, we are several years later. And we know that reducing interest rates a lot and keeping them very low doesn’t work to stimulate the economy.

We have had interest rates close to zero percent for eight years but this had no effect on growth. It did not work in Japan, which has been doing this for 25 years. It is not working in Europe either.

However, it is creating more and more distortions in the economy. Artificially low interest rates are encouraging people to borrow. The debt carried by Canadian households has reached record levels. If interest rates increased now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians would suddenly have trouble paying their mortgage.

Artificially low interest rates are also hurting savers and investors, who see very poor returns on their money. They are causing trouble for banks and insurance companies, which are forced to invest in riskier assets. They are creating bubbles in various sectors, which is exactly the reason why there was a crash in 2007.

Central banks have been saying for years now that they will eventually have to raise interest rates and go back to a normal situation. They know that keeping them very low is creating imbalances, which are getting worse day by day. But they are afraid that raising rates will provoke another major recession.

In a speech before the Economic Club in Toronto in 2010, I warned that a monetary stimulus policy would not solve our long-term problems and would on the contrary bring about another crisis. You cannot create growth and wealth simply by printing more money and encouraging people to borrow and spend, just like you don’t get richer by maxing out your credit card. The only way to create wealth is by investing more, working more and producing more.

At the time, everybody believed that very low interest rates would boost the economy. Everybody is now aware that it’s not working and that the situation has become untenable.

Canada’s former Chief Economic Analyst, Philip Cross, wrote in a recent study published by the MacDonald-Laurier Institute that “The historical record is that the stimulative policies used to end one recession sow the seeds for the next cyclical downturn.”

If monetary policy is ineffective, how than can we get out of this dead-end and prevent another major recession? Business investment has been one of the weakest areas of our economy in recent years. We should adopt policies to encourage the private sector to invest and create wealth.

Three months ago, I made a series of proposals to unleash Canada’s economy. I proposed to reduce corporate income tax from 15% to 10%. To abolish the capital gains tax. And to make permanent and extend to all sectors the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance.

This is in addition to other measures I have announced to bring more competition in the telecommunications sector, the air transportation sector, and in agriculture, as well as to cut red tape by eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. The more open our economy, and the more competition there is, the more businesses will be inclined to invest.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, agrees that there is little more he can do to stimulate the economy and that we should use other means than monetary policy. He is right in saying this. However, he should have stopped there.

Instead, he has spent the past year using every occasion to champion the Liberal government’s misguided plan to go into deficit and spend more taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Poloz is not only wrong about the effectiveness of this Keynesian solution. He is wrong in actively promoting it and encouraging the government fiscal policy.

The Governor of the Central Bank is a civil servant, not a politician. In April 2015, when asked by my colleague Andrew Saxton during a Finance Committee hearing to comment on the benefits of a balanced budget for the economy, Mr. Poloz answered: “It’s really not our role to comment on fiscal policy. Since we’re the central bank, I would decline that.”

He was right. He has a duty to remain impartial when it comes to the different types of fiscal policies that should be implemented. He has no business cheerleading one type of solution over another to stimulate the economy. His business is to manage the Central Bank. He has crossed a line, and I strongly suggest that he refrain in the future from such involvement into partisan politics.

To summarize: When I am elected Prime Minister in 2019, I will put an end to the ineffective deficit spending policy of the current government. I will bring back a balanced budget within two years. I will legislate tax cuts to boost private investment and stimulate the economy on a sustainable basis. And I will ask the Bank of Canada to study once again the benefits of eventually adopting a 0% inflation target when its mandate is renewed in 2021.

Thank you. 

Maxime Bernier Announces Reforms
for CBC/Radio-Canada

CBC/Radio-Canada would Focus on its Mandate Instead of Unfairly Competing with Struggling Private Broadcasters

November 23, 2016

For Immediate Release

OTTAWA – Maxime Bernier, Leadership Candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, today announced his plan for reforming the CBC/Radio-Canada. 

As Prime Minister, Bernier would implement two concrete reforms to ensure that the CBC delivers quality content at a lower cost to Canadian taxpayers, while stopping the harm done to private media outlets by unfairly competing with them in the advertisement market.

First, Bernier would streamline the mandate of CBC. While the media landscape today comprises hundreds of broadcasters and enormous content on the Internet, CBC/Radio-Canada continues to occupy every niche even though it doesn’t have the means to do so. Its resources are also too concentrated in Toronto and Montreal at the expense of the rest of the country. 

The second reform is getting the public broadcaster out of the advertising market. Under Bernier’s plan, to replace its revenues from advertising, CBC/Radio-Canada would switch to a PBS/NPR model where support come from sponsors, and from viewer and listener contributions.

Key Quotes from Maxime Bernier

“CBC/Radio-Canada should stop doing three-quarters of what it still does, which any private broadcaster can do, and concentrate on what only it can do. To achieve this, my government will make changes to the Broadcasting Act to clarify and refocus the CBC mandate.”

“All private media outlets have had to make deep cuts and to lay off journalists by the hundreds in the past few years. Yet, after getting a head start with more than a billion dollars in taxpayers’ money, CBC/Radio-Canada unfairly competes with struggling private media in a shrinking advertisement market.”

“A Conservative government under my leadership will rescind the $150 million in additional annual funding announced by the current government. That will bring back public funding to $1 billion dollars, as it was last year. My government will also review the remaining funding in light of the more focused mandate and structure I just discussed, and of the state of public finances after several years of runaway spending and deficits by the Trudeau government. I cannot give any arbitrary number today, but I assume that the taxpayers’ contribution will be lower than one billion dollars.”

A New, More Focused Role for CBC/Radio-Canada

Maxime Bernier

November 23, 2016

When it was created 80 years ago, CBC/Radio-Canada was meant to give a voice to Canadians in the new world of radio broadcasting. It did the same later when television became a mass media. 

At the time, there were only a few private channels. There was an obvious role for a public broadcaster trying to reach all Canadians in big cities or small and remote communities; to connect them to the rest of the country and the world; and to bring them together through a shared expression of ideas and culture. It worked very well for several decades and had a profound influence on how we see ourselves and the world.

Fast forward to 2016. The media landscape, with its hundreds of channels and its millions of sources of information and culture, is radically different. Yet, CBC/Radio-Canada seems frozen in time.

It tries to occupy every niche, even though it doesn’t have and will never have the means to do so, with the result being lower-quality programming. The viewership for its English service in particular has reached new lows. To stay relevant, it reinterprets its mandate every few years, going from crisis to crisis.

What should be done? If I am elected leader of my party and prime minister, I propose to implement two fundamental reforms.

First, the role and mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada have to be refocused.

Do we need a public broadcaster that does game shows and cooking shows?

Do we need a public broadcaster involved in sports when we have all-sports channels?

Do we need a public broadcaster that runs bad Canadian copies of American popular shows?

Do we need a public broadcaster that offers music streaming on the Web when there are thousands of music channels available?

Do we need a public broadcaster that now has a website devoted to opinion journalism that competes with newspapers and magazines?

The answer to all these questions is a clear NO.

I believe there is still a role in our media landscape for a public radio and television network. But it has to be something other than what the private sector already offers.

We should not reinvent the wheel. Already, the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada states that it should:

– be predominantly and distinctively Canadian and contribute to our national consciousness and identity;

– reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions;

– actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression; and

– reflects the needs and circumstances of our language communities, and also the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.

CBC/Radio-Canada has the widest network of journalists and correspondents across the country. That’s one of its unique qualities. Yet, over the past couple of years, when it had to adjust to a smaller budget, it cut back on its regional stations and concentrated more resources in the big towers in Toronto and Montreal instead. It should have done the opposite. Canadians don’t want to see their world only through the eyes of Toronto or Montreal.

A more focused CBC/Radio-Canada should offer more quality public affairs programs, and not all based in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. When was the last time you saw a panel of guests on national TV debating the issues of the day in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan or the North?

It should show us what is going on in the neighbourhoods of our big cities, but also in our small towns and rural areas, in our remote and aboriginal communities.

It should explain the outside world to us with more foreign correspondents.

It should team up with the fantastic cultural institutions, theaters, orchestras, festivals, that exists in every parts of our country, and show what they do to the rest of Canada.

It should make us think, with more quality documentaries, more programs about science, history, or religion. Canadians are notoriously ignorant of their own history. Shouldn’t it be the role of a public broadcaster to show it in interesting ways?

In short, CBC/Radio-Canada should stop doing three quarters of what it still does, which any private broadcaster can do, and concentrate on what only it can do. To achieve this, my government will make changes to the Broadcasting Act to clarify and refocus the CBC/Radio-Canada mandate. 

The second reform that I propose to implement is to get the CBC/Radio-Canada out of the advertising market.

All private media outlets have had to make deep cuts and to lay off journalists by the hundreds in the past few years. Yet, after getting a head start with more than a billion dollars in taxpayers’ money, CBC/Radio-Canada unfairly competes with struggling private media in a shrinking advertisement market.

To replace its revenues from advertisement, which amounted to about $250 million last year, the CBC/Radio-Canada will have to switch to the PBS/NPR model in the US and rely on sponsorships from corporations and foundations, as well as voluntary donations from its viewers and listeners. Of course, changes to the structure of CBC/Radio-Canada will also require changes to the Broadcasting Act.

There are several advantages to this. It will end the unfair competition with other media. It will ensure more quality programing by eliminating the need to constantly get higher ratings to sell advertising space. Instead of competing with private networks for a mass audience, CBC/Radio-Canada will be more responsive to the viewers willing to contribute to its unique programming.

As for it its public subsidy, a Conservative government under my leadership will rescind the $150 million in additional annual funding announced by the current government. That will bring back public funding to $1 billion dollars, as it was last year. My government will also review the remaining funding in light of the more focused mandate and structure I just discussed, and of the state of public finances after several years of runaway spending and deficits by the Trudeau government. I cannot give any arbitrary number today, but I assume that the taxpayers’ contribution will be lower than one billion dollars.

My campaign is based on the principles of freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect. With my proposal, CBC/Radio-Canada will stop competing unfairly with private media, and will be more respectful of the taxpayers that help fund it. It will also become a more relevant public institution, helping to reinforce our culture and our national identity.

I ask Conservative Party of Canada members, and all Canadians, to support me so that we can implement this reform.

Thank you. 

Published on November 14, 2015

There is a simple way for the federal government to show fairness to all regions of the country, to industries, to businesses, as well as to taxpayers: It is to completely stop subsidizing businesses and to reduce their taxes. This is not only a fair solution, but one that is economically efficient. It is a solution that emphasizes the rigorous management of public finances, the accountability of business players and the discipline of the free market. It is the only coherent conservative solution that respects our values of freedom and responsibility.

It is this solution that I will defend in Ottawa.

OTTAWA – Today, Maxime Bernier announced his plan to put an end to squabbling between Ottawa and the provinces over health care funding and encourage provincial governments to take the necessary tough decisions to deal with wait times and rising costs.

Health care is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Yet, provinces keep begging for more money and blaming Ottawa for their failure to tackle problems.

For its part, the Trudeau government is renewing with the Liberal tradition of meddling in provincial jurisdictions and is trying to impose its own priorities. The conference of health ministers beginning today in Toronto will show once again that nothing good can come out of this dysfunctional system.

Bernier’s plan has three key components:

• Replace the Canada Health Transfer by tax points of equivalent value given to the provinces.
• End the current confusion over who does what. Provinces should take their responsibility for health care funding and management and be fully accountable for the results, while Ottawa should respect the Constitution and stop meddling.
• Create the conditions to encourage provinces to innovate and adopt reforms in line with what is normal in the mixed universal systems of all other developed countries apart from the U.S., such as allowing for private insurance and private service delivery.

The MP for Beauce, who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, noted that over the years, the government of Quebec, but also respected figures such as Preston Manning, Mike Harris and Jack Mintz, have argued for this type of reform to Canada’s health care funding. 

KEY MAXIME BERNIER QUOTES:

“I can make one prediction: This week’s meeting in Toronto is not going to solve anything. What we are going to see is a bunch of bickering politicians failing their primary responsibility, which is to find more efficient ways to offer first-class health care services to all Canadians.”

“Canada has the longest patient wait times of any developed country. And it’s not because of a lack of funding. Ottawa’s health care transfers to the provinces have risen by 80% since 2006 with little to show for it. Throwing good money after bad clearly isn’t working.”

“In Germany, Australia, Spain, France and Italy, more than one third of hospitals are private and for profit. In Canada, the proportion is zero. These countries all perform better than Canada. Nobody is left aside because of low income. Wait times are non-existent or very short. Nobody is denied care while waiting months or years to receive a treatment.”

Good morning,

Provincial and territorial Health Ministers are meeting today in Toronto to discuss a new health transfer accord with Ottawa. They will be joined by their federal counterpart tomorrow.

The topic is of utmost importance: Poll after poll has shown that Canadians consider access to health care their top priority.

Yet, I can make one prediction: This meeting is not going to solve anything. What we are going to see is a bunch of bickering politicians failing their primary responsibility, which is to find more efficient ways to offer first-class health care services to all Canadians. And at the same time deal with the fact that health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate and putting more and more financial pressures on the budgets of all governments.

We already know the scenario. The provinces will beg Ottawa for more money. And the federal government will try to impose its priorities over how and where the money is spent. All this, despite the fact that health care is an exclusive constitutional responsibility of the provinces.

Whatever happens, more and more money will be spent. But Canadians will not get better services. And they won’t know who is really responsible for this.

Why are we in this situation? It cannot be because Ottawa is not contributing enough to health care funding. The amounts transferred to the provinces have increased by 80% between 2006-07 and this year, from $20 billion to $36 billion. Meanwhile, all other federal program spending only increased by 50%.

The 6% increases that our Conservative government provided, year after year, were way above what should have been a normal rate of increase, given economic and population growth.

We might have expected this increased funding to help solve the access problems plaguing our health care system. But that did not happen. Canada has the dubious distinction of having the worst wait times among developed countries.

According to studies conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, Canada is dead last in international rankings of developed countries when it comes to wait times in the emergency room, to see a doctor or to undergo treatment.

The problem is not money. Canada is among the OECD countries that spend the most on health care when we adjust for age.

The fundamental problem is that we are the only developed country where the government has a monopoly on medically required care.

It’s time we break the taboo surrounding the role of the private sector in health care. I agree that we should not be following the American model, which costs a lot more than ours and excludes too many people without insurance. But that’s not the only model available.

Apart from the U.S., all other OECD countries have mixed universal health care systems, without a public monopoly like in Canada. They all provide more hospital services through the private sector than Canada.  Yet, they are also all universal systems where everybody is covered by public and private insurance.

Patients in these countries have a lot more choice than Canadians. They can be treated in public or private hospitals, with the government paying for the treatment. In Germany, Australia, Spain, France and Italy, more than one third of hospitals are private and for profit. In Canada, the proportion is zero.

These countries all perform better than Canada. Nobody is left aside because of low income. Wait times are non-existent or very short. Nobody is denied care while waiting months or years to receive treatment.

Why can’t we do the same? Why can’t we reform our health care system to make it more flexible, less bureaucratic, and more responsive to the needs of patients?

Those who believe in big government, big bureaucracies and big unions don’t want Canadians to know about this. Every time someone raises the issue of the role of the private sector in health care, they cry “Americanization” or “two-tier health care.” These irrational fears prevent us from having a meaningful debate and consider the pragmatic solutions implemented in every other developed country, in Europe, in Japan, in Australia.

I’m giving my opinion here not as a politician who proposes to do these reforms, but as a citizen. I would like my parents, my two daughters, and all Canadians to benefit from the same efficient health care system. But it’s up to the provinces to implement these reforms. Ottawa can only set up the right conditions to encourage them to do so.

You may remember that when our government was elected in 2006, one of the five priorities in our election platform was the establishment of wait times guarantees. Hundreds of millions of dollars were distributed in various programs and to the provinces to implement that promise. Ten years later, wait times are as bad or worse.  

Throwing more federal money at the problem is not going to make any difference. On the contrary, it is part of the problem. Why would provincial governments make tough decisions if they can always blame Ottawa for not sending enough money?

So, what should be done? We should get rid of today’s dysfunctional system for funding health care. And replace it with another that will give the right incentives to provincial governments to adopt the necessary reforms.

That is why I propose to replace the Canada Health Transfers by tax points of equivalent value that will be given to the provinces, under a model already used for several programs since the 1960s. There will be no more transfer of cash from Ottawa. Provinces will raise the money themselves and decide what to do with it.

This proposal is in no way original of course. It was defended by successive Quebec governments for decades, regardless of the political status they favoured for Quebec.

Several years ago, Preston Manning and Mike Harris made a similar proposal in their series Canada Strong and Free, published by the Fraser Institute and the Montreal Economic Institute. Respected economists such as Jack Mintz have also argued for this type of reform.

If elected Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, I will implement a Responsible Federalism for Canada’s health care funding. My campaign is based on four themes: Freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect.

The Liberals have been trying for decades to centralize the management of health care, using Ottawa’s so-called spending power. The federal government should instead RESPECT our Constitution. Ottawa’s meddling has only brought confusion over who does what and who is responsible for what, without any positive results in terms of reduced wait times.

At the same time, provincial governments need to take full RESPONSIBILITY for managing health care. They should be held accountable before their own electorate for their successes or failures to solve problems.

With this reform, the provinces will no longer have excuses, but they will be empowered to fix the system. They will stop constantly begging for more money and won’t be able to blame Ottawa for their failure to tackle wait times. It will force them to be more innovative and to take the tough decisions that are necessary to achieve concrete results.

Canadians have been waiting for too long, both when they want to see a doctor and for a real reform of our health care system. I’m asking them to support me so that we can finally apply the right treatment after having made the right diagnosis.

Thank you.