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.

OTTAWA – Today, Maxime Bernier announced his plan to simplify Canada’s personal taxation system as part of his campaign for Leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The current system is overly complicated.  It’s estimated that Canadians spend $7 billion each year to comply with our tax laws.

Bernier’s plan has four key components:

• Raise the Basic Personal Exemption to $15,000
• Eliminate two tax brackets so that income from $15,001 to $100,000 is taxed at 15%
• Tax income over $100,001 at 25%
• Eliminate boutique tax credits that serve no public policy purpose.

These measures would put a significant amount of money back into Canadians pockets.  Whether they are working class or wealthy, the Government will not be picking winners and losers.  The vast majority of Canadians would pay a single 15% rate, while 1.5 million more of the lowest income Canadians will be taken off the tax rolls.

KEY MAXIME BERNIER QUOTES:

“When we combine federal and provincial rates, the top personal income tax rate in Canada now stands at 54%.  That makes it the 6^th highest amongst OECD industrialized countries”

“The best tax system is simple.  It’s easy to understand.  And it keeps administrative and compliance costs as low as possible.”

“Another important benefit is that ALL taxpayers would pay less taxes, not just the middle class and the wealthy who would benefit from lower marginal taxes. We will implement this reform in a responsible way, without burdening future generations.”

Good morning,

Many economists believe that advanced economies, including Canada, are in a situation where economic growth is going to be chronically slow, around 1% instead of the 4% we were used to until not long ago. 

A period of slow economic growth means that most Canadians will not have any significant wage increase for several years. Finding a job would become more difficult.

The biggest challenge of our time is to get out of this economic stagnation. The pace of growth will determine if we can continue to improve our standard of living and that of our children.

Two weeks ago, I announced a four-point plan to encourage private investment, increase productivity and boost the long-term growth potential of our economy.

Another way to put money directly into Canadians’ pockets and encourage work, savings and investment is of course to cut personal income taxes.

Our current tax regime has very high rates that make it uncompetitive compared with U.S. tax rates and those of other industrialized economies. The Liberal government’s decision to create a new tax bracket at 33% made it even worse.

When we combine federal and provincial rates, the top personal income tax rate in Canada now stands at 54 per cent. That makes it the sixth highest among the 34 OECD industrialized countries.

Meanwhile, our tax code has become an absurdly complicated mess full of holes in it. Every year, Canadians are wasting between $6 billion and $7 billion just to comply with our tax code. Every federal budget brings new tax deductions and tax credits that make it more complicated. 

Several of these boutique tax breaks are essentially politically motivated subsidies that were adopted to buy the support of some specific groups at the expense of the rest of the population.

Researchers at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy have also shown that some of these tax credits are disproportionately beneficial to the wealthy.

The best tax system is simple. It’s easy to understand. And it keeps administrative and compliance costs as low as possible.

It is also fair. It does not favour some groups at the expense of others.

Finally, it is efficient. It minimizes economic distortions, and encourages taxpayers to work, save and invest.

There is a very large consensus among economists that this is the type of reform that is needed to make our economy more productive and to stimulate growth. The last time we had such a major tax reform was three decades ago.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government cut the top marginal tax rate from 34% to 29%; reduced the number of tax brackets from ten to three; and eliminated a series of tax exemptions and deductions.

Today, I propose to implement a similar tax reform if I am elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister.

First, I propose to reduce the number of tax brackets from five to two. Today, we have income tax rates of 15%, 20.5%, 26%, 29% and 33%.

My plan is first to eliminate the new 33% bracket introduced in the Liberal budget as well as the 20.5%, 26% and 29% tax brackets.

The 15% tax bracket would be kept. It would apply on taxable incomes of up to $100,000. Above that level, a new maximum rate of 25% would apply.

I also propose to increase the basic personal amount on which nobody pays taxes from $11,474 to $15,000.

This tax reform will bring several benefits.

First, the vast majority of Canadian taxpayers would pay a single rate of 15% on their income. In other words, they would pay a 15% tax on their income from $15,000 to $100,000.

Today, Canadians move to a higher tax bracket as soon as they make $45,000. And then move to even higher brackets when they make more than $90,000.

With my plan, only a small minority of taxpayers, about 8%, would pay a 25% tax on incomes in excess of $100,000.

Another important benefit is that ALL taxpayers would pay less taxes, not just the middle class and the wealthy who would benefit from lower marginal rates.

The increase in the basic personal amount will bring a $500 tax cut for all taxpayers who make at least $15,000 in taxable income. About 1.5 million more taxpayers with a low income would not be paying any income tax anymore.

It’s easy of course to promise tax cuts. The difficult part is to implement them, and implement them responsibly.

A rough estimate is that this reform would reduce the federal government’s revenues in the short term by about $30 to $35 billion.

I have already signed a pledge to reduce the federal budget to equilibrium within two years of being elected, and not running any deficit after that outside of exceptional circumstances.

My government is going to cut taxes gradually, over the course of several budgets, only as the fiscal room is found to allow it. There will be no tax cut financed by borrowed money.

How will this be achieved?

First, billions of dollars can be found by reducing the number of tax credits and exemptions. The Fraser Institute estimated in a recent study that there are at least fifty such tax expenditures, worth $20 billion, that should be considered for elimination. I propose to review them and eliminate all those that are inefficient and don’t have a compelling policy objective.

Second, I have made it clear in my campaign so far that my goal is to reduce the size of the federal government. I believe it intervenes in way too many fields and wastes billions of dollars. The current government is going to go from a balanced budget to a $30 billion deficit in only one year after ramping up spending. There is no reason to believe it is unrealistic to reduce taxes by the same amount over several years. I will put an end to that orgy of spending, stop the growth of government and return the savings to taxpayers.

And third, the $30 to $35 billion number is a static estimate. It doesn’t take into account the dynamic positive effects of tax cuts on economic growth. Just like my plan to encourage private investment is going to boost economic growth, cutting income taxes will encourage Canadians to work, save and invest more.

To give an example, government revenues increased by almost $11 billion between 2013-14 and 2014-15. Program expenses increased by only $5 billion. That allowed our government to post its first budget surplus since the recession of 2008. A government that controls spending while the economy is growing will have the fiscal room to cut taxes if it makes it a priority. I will make it my priority.

The four themes of my campaign are freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect.

My plan is to FREE our economy from the burden of heavy taxation so that it grows faster.

To RESPECT hard-working Canadian taxpayers and give them back some of their money.

To stop using our tax system for political ends and make it simpler and more FAIR.

And to implement this reform in a RESPONSIBLE way, without burdening future generations.

I’m asking members of the Conservative Party of Canada, and all Canadians, to support me in achieving this objective.

Thank you. 

Published on September 20, 2016

Maxime Bernier

Canadian Club, Toronto, September 20, 2016

Thanks for that kind introduction. I want to thank everyone for your interest in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race. It has been described as a “big yawn fest” by some media pundits. I hope everyone is well caffeinated!

As professionals, I’m sure you are, like me, troubled by all the current talk about advanced economies, like Canada, being stuck in so-called “secular stagnation.” Many people believe we are in a situation where economic growth is going to be chronically slow, around 1% instead of the 4% we were used to until not so long ago.

According to the private sector economists, economic growth in Canada this year will only be 1.3%. That means: no new jobs and no salary increase for Canadians.

Our societies are aging fast. Great technological innovations are said to have come to an end. Business investment is down, presumably because of a lack of profitable opportunities. Productivity growth is extremely slow.

Over the past fifteen years, multifactor productivity growth in Canada has stood above 2% only one year—in 2000. It was below 1%, often negative, in ten of those fifteen years.

There is no way we can improve our standard of living without growth in productivity. Not when the number of seniors is fast increasing while the proportion of working age Canadians is shrinking. Those who are working have to become more productive if we are to sustain our prosperity.

Another major problem is that our economies seem to be trapped in a perverse monetary situation. We have had interest rates at close to zero percent for several years but this had no effect on growth. However, it’s creating more and more distortions in the economy.

Artificially low interest rates are encouraging people to borrow. We learned last week that the level of debt carried by Canadian households has reached a record level, at 168% of disposable income. If interest rates were to increase now, hundreds of thousands would suddenly have trouble paying their mortgage.

Artificially low interest rates are also hurting savers. 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.

Everybody is now aware that this monetary situation is unsustainable. Central banks have been saying for years now that they will eventually raise interest rates, but they are afraid that doing so will provoke another major recession.

So, how are we supposed to get out of this situation of economic stagnation? The current Liberal government believes it has found the remedy: Borrow, borrow, borrow. Spend, spend, spend. In short, the old Keynesian solution.

According to this view, if consumers don’t spend enough, and businesses don’t invest enough, then the government should do it for them.

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, recently came to Canada to praise the Liberal policy. The Bank of Canada has also encouraged the government to bring more fiscal stimulus, saying there is little else it can do with monetary policy.

I don’t buy this solution of more borrowing and spending. There is just one word to accurately describe Keynesianism: Nonsense.

The key question you have to ask yourself is this: “Where does the money the government spends come from?” A government cannot inject resources into the economy unless it has first extracted them from citizens through taxes, or put us further into debt by borrowing the money.

Every time the government takes an additional dollar in taxes out of someone’s pocket, or borrows it from someone, that’s a dollar that this person won’t be able to spend or invest. Government borrowing and spending goes up, private borrowing and spending goes down. There is no net wealth creation.

It’s like taking a bucket of water in the deep end of a swimming pool and emptying it in the shallow end.

I don’t believe our economy has slowed down because governments are not spending enough taxpayers’ money, or getting us enough into debt. More government borrowing and spending are not the answer to our economic challenges.

To understand why investment is down, we also have to look at the incentives businesses have to invest. Or rather, the lack of in centives.

Despite interest rates being exceptionally low, businesses are afraid to invest because of the uncertain economic future that they face. They see all the debt and distortions created by successive monetary and fiscal stimulus in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. since the Great Recession. They see governments increasing regulation and intervening more and more in the economy.

More spending on the scale offered by the Liberal government is not going to stimulate the economy and bring us prosperity. It will act as a sedative for the economy.

Prosperity does not come from government spending but rather from entrepreneurs investing. What we need is the exact opposite of more government spending. We need to encourage private investment in order to increase the economy’s productive capacity.

I have already made a series of announcements that would 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 are inclined to invest to stay competitive.

Today, I offer an ambitious tax plan to unleash Canada’s productive forces, boost private investment and bring higher sustainable long-term growth. Economic growth that will allow us to lower personal taxes, better fund the government services Canadians expect and pay down the debt.

First, I propose to abolish the capital gains tax.

The capital gains tax is a tax on investment. Everybody understands the logic: The more you tax something, the less of it you will get.

Young entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses often have difficulty finding financial backing for their projects. Abolishing the capital gains tax will

encourage everybody to save more and invest more. It will increase the supply and lower the cost of capital for these new firms.

The capital gains tax also discourages investors from selling old assets and investing in more productive new ones because that sale triggers the tax. Getting rid of it will not only bring more capital, it will increase the overall efficiency of capital.

This may sound like a radical proposal, but it’s not. There was no capital gains tax in Canada until 1972. The Fraser Institute determined in a 2014 study that Canada’s top personal capital gains tax rate is the 14th highest among the 34 OECD countries. But 11 of these countries impose no capital gains tax at all, including Switzerland, Belgium, South Korea and the Netherlands.

Today Ottawa collects only about 3 billion dollars from capital gains taxes every year, or about 1% of its total revenues. The benefits to our economy would vastly exceed this loss of revenues.

My second proposal is to make Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance a permanent feature of the Canadian tax system and extend it to all sectors.

In 2007, as part of measures adopted to deal with the financial crisis, our Conservative government introduced accelerated capital cost allowance rates for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing or processing. It was extended to clean energy equipment in 2010. The program was supposed to come to an end in 2015 but was extended for ten years in our government’s last budget.

Capital expenditures are a key driver of productivity. When they invest in new machinery and equipment, manufacturers can produce more output per hour, improve quality, and increase efficiency at all levels. Workers become more productive, which is the key factor leading to higher wages.

It also contributes to a greener economy. We can use less energy and resources to produce more. Investing in productive capacity is the best way to help both our environment and our economy.

Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance has the effect of boosting investment by allowing for a faster write-off and cost recovery. For example, instead of writing off an investment over a period of 15 years, a company can deduct it from its income in only 3 years. This directly affects the company’s cash flow. The government loses corporate tax revenues in the short term, but the increased productivity and profitability brings more revenue in the longer term.

I see no reason to restrict this measure to manufacturing and clean energy equipment. To avoid distortions, there should be a level playing field. Investment should be encouraged in all sectors of our economy, and the measure should be made permanent.

It would also apply to investment in telecommunications, in oil and gas, fisheries, agriculture or any other sector that provides value-adding jobs to Canadians.

My final tax measure to boost investment in Canada is to further reduce the corporate income tax. This will increase the after-tax rate of return on investment, and thus encourage businesses to invest more.

One of our government’s major fiscal achievements was to reduce the corporate income tax from 22% in 2007 to 15% in 2012. We can do better. Canada’s combined federal-provincial corporate income tax rate is the 15th highest among 34 OECD countries. I propose to bring down the federal rate to 10%.

Reducing corporate income tax doesn’t necessarily mean that government revenues go down. A lower tax rate attracts more foreign companies and leads to the creation of more companies in Canada. More companies will become more profitable, invest more, employ more people and pay more taxes.

Still, these three measures do imply that government revenues will go down at least temporarily. I’m against deficits. I’m against increasing personal taxes. There is one ideal way to recoup the revenue loss: Put business subsidies on the chopping block!

The federal government is spending billions of dollars every year to help businesses. It directly puts money in new investments, bails out failing companies, and offers dozens of different incentives, tax credit and tax deductions for all kinds of reasons. A recent study by the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary found $16 billion in various types of direct and indirect subsidies to businesses in 2013.

Several of these measures may be worth keeping. But many others are just inefficient ways for the government to choose winners, bail out unprofitable ventures, promote some bureaucratic fad, or buy political support with taxpayers’ money.

They also create unfair distortions in the economy, by favouring some sectors at the expense of others. Abolishing them will force companies to compete for funds in the capital market instead of wasting resources filling in questionnaires and lobbying the government.

I think axing inefficient subsidy programs is not just good for the economy; it is also crucial to demonstrate to Canadians that pro-growth measures such as tax cuts are not the same as pro-business measures. The ultimate aim of pro- growth measures is to benefit Canadian consumers and workers; not businesses. By putting an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare, I believe it will actually be easier to convince Canadians to accept our pro- growth policies.

It’s time to stop taking billions of dollars out of the private sector, just to redistribute them through subsidies. A rational economic policy will instead lower taxes for all businesses.

This is an ambitious plan. It will end corporate welfare and bring a real and sustainable stimulus to our economy. It will turn Canada into a haven for investors and entrepreneurs. It will lead to more job creation, higher wages, and overall economic activity. And it will achieve this in a responsible way, without burdening future generations.

Thank you.

MAXIME BERNIER ANNOUNCES AN AMBITIOUS PLAN TO UNLEASH CANADA’S PRODUCTIVE FORCES

September 20, 2016

For Immediate Release

TORONTO – Maxime Bernier, Leadership Candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, announced his plan to increase Canada’s productivity and prosperity.

Contrary to the opinion of the Liberal government, Canada is not perpetually destined to an anemic growth rate of less than 1.5%.  Canada can return to much higher annual growth with a simple solution:

Get the government out of the way.

Bernier announced a four point taxation plan to do exactly that.

First, the capital gains tax will be abolished. Second, the accelerated capital cost allowance will be made permanent, and extended to all sectors of the economy, not just manufacturing, clean energy and processing. Third, the corporate income tax rate will be further lowered to 10%. Fourth, corporate welfare will be ended.

Key Quotes from Maxime Bernier:

“I don’t believe our economy has slowed down because governments are not spending enough taxpayers’ money, or getting us enough into debt.”

“Every time the government takes an additional dollar in taxes out of someone’s pocket, or borrows it from someone, that’s a dollar that this person will not be able to spend or invest. Government borrowing and spending goes up, private borrowing and spending goes down. There is no wealth creation. It’s like taking a bucket of water out of the shallow end of a swimming pool and emptying it in the deep end, nothing happen.”

“I want to offer an ambitious tax plan to unleash Canada’s productive forces, boost private investment, increase productivity, create jobs and have higher wages for Canadians.”

“It’s time to stop taking billions of dollars out of the private sector, just to redistribute them through subsidies. A rational economic policy will instead lower taxes for all businesses. It will leave more of this money into the hands of entrepreneurs and investors, and let them decide how to spend it and invest it.”

Click here to read the full speech.

Published on September 06, 2016

Maxime Bernier commits to maple syrup free trade: inside Canada and outside

September 6, 2016 For Immediate Release

Ottawa – Maxime Bernier, candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today called upon the Trudeau government to repeal the Quebec Maple Sap and Maple Syrup Order. If elected Conservative leader and Prime Minister, Bernier has pledged to fight to allow all Canadian maple syrup producers to export their syrup to other provinces and international markets freely. 

Bernier was accompanied by Angèle Grenier, a maple syrup producer from Beauce, Quebec. Ms. Grenier wants to bring before the Supreme Court of Canada a dispute with the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers (FPAQ).

In Quebec, a monopolistic system of compulsory membership marketing allows the FPAQ to act as the cartel of maple syrup. A recent report commissioned by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food described the Federation as « the OPEC of maple syrup. » FPAQ operates in a similar fashion to the old Canadian Wheat Board and the current Supply Management system for dairy, egg, and poultry products.

Article 121 of the Canadian Constitution guarantees free trade between provinces. Bernier believes the Canadian Government should protect the Constitution and ensure that all Canadians can trade freely across provincial borders.

Key Bernier Quotes:

“Just as supply management in dairy, egg, poultry products be abolished, just as the old Canadian Wheat Board was wisely abolished, the maple syrup cartel must also be abolished. It is the opposite of a free market.”

“Ms. Grenier merely wants her constitutional rights respected to sell her maple syrup to whom she wishes freely. As I said two weeks ago, the Constitution is clear: We have a right to free trade between provinces. I call upon the Trudeau government to uphold the Constitution.”

“The Canadian Government should be the protector of the Canadian Constitution by respecting and fighting for the constitutional rights of Canadians to trade without barriers within Canada. We must bring back the freedom to produce and trade maple syrup.”