All Canadians should have access to affordable, nutritious food – grown in a way that allows our farmers to not be under the thumb of cartels and their Ottawa based lobbyists.

Supply management is a system that keeps the prices of dairy, poultry and eggs artificially high through the control of production, the banning of imports, price fixing by bureaucrats, and the prevention of competition in the market. 

Conservatives are not credible when we talk about principles and then defend policies that squarely contradict these principles.

It’s time to see this policy changed in a way the benefits both consumers and farmers. 

Good morning,

Since I announced my candidacy for the leadership of the Conservative Party, there is one question that I have been asked by almost every journalist, as well as by many Conservative members: “How do you reconcile your free-market principles with your support for supply management?”

There is of course no way to reconcile it. Supply management is a system based on keeping the prices of dairy, poultry and eggs artificially high through the control of production, the banning of imports and price fixing by bureaucrats. It is a government cartel. It is the opposite of free markets.

However, article 117 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration affirms the party’s official support for supply management. As an MP and minister in a government that supported supply management, I was not in a position to question the party’s democratic decision, or cabinet solidarity. And so I went along with it, even though I had grave misgivings about it for all these years.

Today, I am running for the leadership of my party. I have said repeatedly that for conservative principles to win, we must defend them openly, with passion and conviction. I cannot defend supply management with passion and conviction. And I think we Conservatives are not credible when we talk about principles and then defend policies that squarely contradicts these principles.

Why should we change this system? Because it is inefficient and fundamentally unfair to Canadian consumers and to our farmers.

I understand that there are advantages to the supply management system. One is that in a world where agriculture is being subsidized everywhere, Canadian supply management production does not require any subsidies on the part of government.

However, it does require much larger subsidies placed on the backs of Canadian consumers 2.6 billion of dollars each year, by fixing prices above the world price and preventing competition from foreign imports. In order to protect 10% of farmers, we are forcing all Canadian families, especially those with children and low-income families, to pay hundreds of dollars more every year for dairy, eggs and poultry products. This system is fundamentally unfair to Canadian families.

Another advantage is that it provides stability for farmers, in terms of prices and quantity of production. But the flip side of this is that it doesn’t adapt to changes in demand and it discourages innovation and productivity. The current crisis in the dairy sector with diafiltered milk is just the latest illustration of what happens when a system is too inflexible.

Supply management is also unfair to the other 90% of farmers who cannot develop their export markets as much as they otherwise could. Canada has always focused, when negotiating trade agreements, on protecting those sectors covered by supply management instead of trying to open new markets for the other sectors.

In order to satisfy one small, but powerful lobby, we restrict the development of thousands of other farming businesses across the country, and prevent the creation of thousands of jobs in these other sectors.

Supply management is unfair to all those businesses in the food processing sector and food preparation sector like restaurants that are forced to pay more for basic products and are therefore less competitive.

Of course, we cannot simply abolish the system and abandon those farmers who have played by the rules imposed by successive governments and have invested in those production quotas. They must be properly compensated.

The best solution would be to follow the successful example of reform in Australia. There would be a multi-year phase-out of import barriers and elimination of the domestic quotas and price control system. A temporary levy on these products would be raised to compensate farmers for the value of their quota. After that transition period, we would have a free, open and fair system to all, with lower prices, innovation, and more growth in the whole agricultural sector.

For all these reasons, I think it is time to have a debate. I am respectfully asking the members of our party to reconsider their position on this issue. During the coming year, I will try to convince Conservative Party members, as well as my fellow leadership candidates, that we should adopt a new position. We should use the occasion of the leadership race to have a real debate on this issue instead of maintaining this taboo.

There are very powerful lobbies in the supply management sector. My own riding is among those with the largest number of farms under supply management in Canada. But political leadership is about tackling difficult issues, not avoiding them.

Two years ago, our former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said it is time to consider ending the supply management system. He compared the challenge to his own fight for Canada-U.S. free trade in the 1980s. Reform, he said, calls for bold leaders willing to endure short-term political risk for the sake of longer-term rewards.

I am willing to take that risk, because I believe that this is the right thing to do for all Canadians and for the Canadian economy. Thank you.

Ottawa – Maxime Bernier, leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, today called on Conservative members to reconsider the Party’s official support for supply management in agriculture.

Supply management is a legislated cartel based on control of production, on the banning of imports, on price fixing by bureaucrats, and on preventing competition and entry into the market. It forces families, especially those with children and low-income families, to pay hundreds of dollars more every year for dairy, egg and poultry products. It is 2.6 billion of dollars more that Canadians pay each year for these products.

Maxime Bernier believes it’s time to adopt a position on this issue based on free-market principles. “Conservatives are not credible when we talk about principles and then defend policies that squarely contradict these principles,” he said at a press conference in Ottawa.

The policy is not only unfair to consumers, but also to the 90% of farmers in other agricultural sectors who cannot develop their export markets as much as they otherwise could, because the protection of supply management has always been the focus of negotiations in trade agreements.

“In order to satisfy one small but powerful lobby, we restrict the development of thousands of other farming businesses across the country, and prevent the creation of thousands of jobs in these other sectors,” Mr. Bernier declared.

The Beauce MP proposes to follow the successful example of reform in Australia. There would be a gradual phase-out of the system with a temporary levy on these products to compensate farmers for the value of their quota. After that transition period, Canada would have a free, open and fair system to all, with lower prices, innovation, and more growth in the whole agricultural sector.

Several commentators and personalities have concluded over the years that supply management is an inefficient and unfair system, including former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who said it’s time to consider ending it. Maxime Bernier believes the leadership race is a good occasion to have a real debate on this issue instead of maintaining this taboo, despite the political risk it implies. “I am willing to take that risk, because I believe that this is the right thing to do for all Canadians and for the Canadian economy” he concluded.

Maxime supported removing the definition of marriage as being the union between a man and a woman in the Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration. He voted for the change at the party’s convention in Vancouver in May 2016. 

Maxime supports constitutional equality for all regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.

Published on May 11, 2016

Beware protectionism
9 July 2009

Hi,

In times of crisis, people have a normal reaction: they want to protect themselves. And many believe that one way to protect our jobs is to make imports more expensive through tariffs and quotas. They say that we should force consumers and businesses to buy goods and services produced here. This would increase economic activity and maintain jobs that would otherwise disappear.

This solution may be based on good intentions. But it is short-sighted and can only have disastrous consequences. All economic history teaches us that protectionism makes us less prosperous, not more.

Why is trading beneficial? It’s easy to understand. I will explain with a small economic unit that you are familiar with: your family.

Imagine that you and your family cut their links to the outside world. You have to grow all your food, make your own clothes, create your means of transportation, and even build the computer which allows you to watch me right now. It’s obvious that you would not be able to do all this and that you would be much poorer.

If instead you concentrate your efforts on one type of work, the one you chose as a trade, and you exchange what you make for other stuff that other people make, you will then be able to access all the goods and services available on the market.

This is what we call the economic advantages of the division of labour. When each of us specializes in what we do best, it takes fewer resources to produce more stuff, more efficiently. That benefits everyone. Of course, we lose these advantages when we close our borders to goods from elsewhere.

The logic of the division of labour is the same when you apply it to larger entities like a region, a province or a country. Those who believe that protectionism is good for the economy should ask themselves this question: why apply it only at the national level? Should we close the borders of Manitoba or New Brunswick to foreign products? Or perhaps restrict commercial exchange between Kitchener and Hamilton?

It’s also inevitable that as we close our borders, we encourage other countries to do the same to our own exports. One of the measures that contributed most to the Great Depression is the adoption of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs by the American government in 1930. Other countries then retaliated and international trade collapsed by two thirds within a few years.

At the end of the day, protectionism means that we prevent people from buying what they want. It means limiting freedom of choice. And it means making everyone poorer in order to protect some businesses that cannot face competition from abroad. It may help save jobs in some industries in the short term, but we’re going to lose at least as many in other industries that depend on foreign markets.

Our government firmly believes in the benefits of trade, including in times of crisis. This is why we are currently negotiating an ambitious free-trade agreement with the European Union. And why two weeks ago, the minister of International Trade, Stockwell Day, asked our American friends to enlarge NAFTA, in order to also cover spending by states, provinces and cities.

Protectionism is an illusion. Let’s not repeat the errors of the Great Depression. Let’s keep our markets open and leave people free to decide what they want to buy.

Talk to you again soon.

Sainte-Marie, QC – Maxime Bernier, Conservative Member of Parliament for Beauce, launched his campaign for the Leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada earlier today. At a rally in Ste-Marie, QC a large crowd came out to see Mr. Bernier deliver his vision for Canada.

Joining Mr. Bernier were his National Campaign Co-Chairs John Reynolds and Jacques Gourde and Fundraising Committee Chair Alex Nuttall. Bernard Généreux, Quebec caucus chair was also on hand.

Concurrently with the launch, Mr. Bernier’s campaign website [maximebernier.com] and social media presence [https://www.facebook.com/hon.maximebernier/] was unveiled.

The campaign is officially registered with the Conservative Party of Canada and Elections Canada and is considered official for purposes of signing-up members, taking donations and participating fully in all leadership events.

Maxime Bernier: “Imagine a country where these principles of freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect are the basis of all political decisions. I am going to fight for this ideal, with passion and conviction. I know that I can convince a majority of Conservatives, and a majority of Canadians, to support this vision. That’s what I’m going to do over the next twelve months. That’s why I want to become the leader of the Conservative Party.”

John Reynolds PC, Campaign Co-Chair: “To fight Justin Trudeau, the Conservative Party will have to become more competitive in Quebec. This logic is undeniable. And just as he will take Trudeau on in Quebec, he will take him on in the Atlantic, in Ontario, on the Prairies, out in British Columbia and up in the North.”

Jacques Gourde MP, Campaign Co-Chair: “Maxime’s dynamism is infectious. We need him as leader of our party in order to give new impetus to conservative ideas while remaining firmly faithful to it.”

Alex Nuttall MP, Fund-Raising Committee Chair: “Canadians deserve hope and unbridled opportunity. With Maxime’s principles of freedom, personal responsibility, and fairness that is what Canadians will get.”

Published on May 14, 2016

CAMPAIGN LAUNCH

STE-MARIE, QUÉBEC

SUNDAY, MAY 15TH, 2016

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
(Sentences in italics were in French in the spoken version)

Dear friends,

Dear friends from Beauce,

Dear friends who travelled to be here with us today,

Dear friends who are watching from all across Canada. Good morning.

Today, I begin the most important race of my life!

As you know, I am a runner. This is one of my passions.

My first race in politics began more than ten years ago, on December 6, 2005, when I announced that I would be the Conservative candidate to represent the people of Beauce in the Federal Parliament.

You put your trust in me. You elected me, and re-elected me, with some of the largest majorities in Canada. It’s you, the people of Beauce, who gave me my momentum.

Yes, I’m someone who likes to run! Three years ago, with the help of many volunteers who are in this room today, we organized the Great Crossing of the Beauce. I ran 107 kilometres in 13 hours, from south to north of this magnificent riding. We raised $160,000 for our food bank. That’s the spirit of the Beauce!

You are the ones who supported me along the way, in every town and village, even when I wasn’t sure I could finish. And you are the ones who supported me through both good and difficult times over the past ten years. I could not have achieved anything in Ottawa without you.

The Beauce is a place where people take charge of their own lives. The Beauce is a place full of builders and entrepreneurs.

It is thanks to the Beauce values of self-reliance, integrity and entrepreneurship, that I had the moral strength to forge ahead. Universal values, that I learned here while growing up, that I have defended in Ottawa.

This place is where I got my first impulse to run for politics. Today, I am beginning the most important race of my life. You could call it the Great Crossing of Canada! To raise support for a new vision of this country’s future.

A major race is a team effort. To succeed a runner needs the physical and psychological support of many people.

This is why, once again, I will need you. You, all my friends and family in this room. You, Jacques and John, my campaign co-chairs. You, Alex, my fund-raising committee chair. You, my team and volunteers already getting busy in every province. You also, the Conservative supporters in every city, town and village across this great country that I’m going to visit in the coming year.

For the past ten years, I have knocked on almost every door even outside election times, in every corner of the Beauce, to get to know you, to understand your concerns, so that I could better represent you in Parliament.

Over the next twelve months, I will meet as many Canadians as possible, from all regions of the country. But, there are many more doors in Canada! I won’t be able to be here, at home, as much as I would like. I will need all your support. Are you ready for the next leg of this race?

What is this new vision of Canada’s future that I want to share with Canadians, as I travel across the country? It’s based on four key principles: freedom and responsibility, fairness and respect.

The vision of Canada that I want to share with all those Canadians that I will meet during the next couple of months is a vision based on four fundamental principles: freedom and responsibility, fairness and respect.

Freedom is the fundamental Conservative value that draws us together here today. Freedom is nothing less than the basis of our civilization. Only in free societies is there human dignity and equality of rights, social pluralism and cultural dynamism, scientific advancement and economic prosperity.

What made Canada a prosperous country and a great place to live, a country where immigrants from everywhere in the world want to come, is that we have been for a century and a half one of the freest societies in the world.

Some people fear freedom because they believe it means freedom to do anything you want. But that’s not what freedom is about. To be free you must take responsibility for your actions and respect the freedom of others.

Freedom and responsibility are inseparable principles. Freedom is the fundamental value that unites us, Conservatives. It is the basis of our civilization. It is what made Canada one of the most prosperous countries on the planet.

Unfortunately, government never stops growing and diminishing our freedom. We work for six months every year to feed this government. And it’s not enough for Justin Trudeau’s irresponsible government, who will burden future generations to the tune of 100-billion dollars over the next five years to pay for new spending, even if we are not in a recession.

Government keeps growing, and our freedom keeps shrinking. We can barely do anything nowadays without having to ask a bureaucrat for permission, as if we were irresponsible children.

Today, almost half of all economic activity is controlled by the state. Half of your salaries are disappearing in taxes. You work almost six months every year to fund spending by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Government is getting so big that it has to force future generations to pay for its current programs, even when we are not in a recession. The new Liberal government in Ottawa will need to borrow $110 billion over the coming years to fund all its new programs. And the worst thing is, this government is proud of it! They are proud of their irresponsible actions!

A big government is a government that diminishes our freedom and treats us like irresponsible children.

A big government is a government that is itself irresponsible and spends money it doesn’t have.

There are five parties represented in Canada’s Parliament. Four believe that government should get bigger. Only one, the Conservative Party, trusts you to be in charge of your life.

Another problem with big government is that it is fundamentally, irrevocably unfair.

A big government takes money from a small entrepreneur here in Ste-Marie-de-Beauce to give it to a big corporation run by millionaires who can afford lobbyists in Ottawa. Is that fair?

A big government forces citizens to be content with inefficient government services by preventing private alternatives to emerge. Is that fair?

A big government forces consumers to pay more for goods and services by protecting industries from competition and creating barriers to trade. Is that fair?

A big government crushes private initiative and the dreams of young entrepreneurs by creating barriers to entry and making capital scarce. Is that fair?

A big government reduces opportunities for everyone by killing job creation with excessive taxes and regulation. Is that fair?

The more a government pretends to solve problems with these reckless policies, the more injustice, inequality and unfairness it creates.

A government that tramples our freedoms, a government that spends our money irresponsibly, a government that treats us unfairly, is a government that does not respect us. The least we can expect from our government is respect!

The other key principle that I want to discuss with Canadians, as I travel the country during the next 12 months, is respect.

The Liberals want to create a new program, a new regulation or a new tax to solve every problem. They believe they have the solution to everything, and they want to decide what is good for us with our own money.

What I want to offer is a government that will respect the choices that Canadians make. A government that will reduce spending and allow Canadians to make their own choices.

The Liberals want to increase the size of government, and the size of the public debt. They want your children, and grandchildren, to pay for their irresponsible decisions.

What I want to offer is a government that will respect taxpayers, that will respect future generations. A government that will eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt and reduce taxes for everyone.

The Liberals want to intervene on health care, on education, on daycare services, on municipal infrastructures. Their vision of Canada is that everything should be controlled from Ottawa.

What I want to offer is a government that respects the Constitution, that respects the division of power, that respects provinces. A government that respects our history and our diversity.

Imagine a country where these principles of freedom, responsibility, fairness and respect are the basis of all political decisions. I want to fight for this ideal, with passion and conviction.

We have the best ideas. We have the best solutions to make Canada a freer and more prosperous country. We have to defend them openly, with passion and with conviction.

I know that I can convince a majority of Conservatives, and a majority of Canadians, to support this vision. That’s what I’m going to do over the next twelve months. That’s why I want to become the leader of the Conservative Party.

Friends, my next race begins now! Let’s lace up! It is a long road ahead and I need you all again to give me the momentum to carry me across the whole country, all the way to the finish line. With victory in our hands.

Let’s go! 

Published on May 12, 2016

Maxime Bernier, minister of State, Small Business and Tourism, Agriculture
Manning Networking Conference
March 7, 2015, Ottawa

https://web.archive.org/web/20191023095835if_/https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FEPO5a_6kGX4%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26feature%3Doembed&wmode=transparent&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEPO5a_6kGX4&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FEPO5a_6kGX4%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=e1208cbfb854483e8443b1ed081912ee&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Thank you Catherine for those kind words. And also a big thanks to the Manning Centre for inviting me.

This is such an amazing opportunity to meet like-minded friends from across the country and to recharge our batteries with lots of good ideas from the best minds in the conservative movement.

I hope you have been taking advantage of the conference, because this year is a crucial year for our country.

It will be a time for choosing: stability or uncertainty… a consolidation of the gains we have achieved over the past several years, which have made Canada one of the soundest economies in the world… or gambling with superficially appealing but reckless policies.

This is the choice that Canadians will have to make before the end of the year, and we have to make sure that it will be clear in everyone’s mind what kind of policies are best for Canadians.

But before we get into this debate, I want to rewind the tape a little bit. I want to talk about the “coolest” decade of the 20^th Century: the 1970s!! You remember the 1970s?

I think I can spot some people in this room who are old enough like me to remember the 1970s: the decade of disco! With Donna Summer, the Bee Gees and Saturday Night Fever. The decade of men in jumpsuits with long hair! Can you imagine me like that?!!

On the economic front, it was not cool! It was the decade of stagflation: economic stagnation with inflation. The decade of big deficits and huge debt. The decade of the National Energy Program. The decade when the federal government was growing like wildfire. The decade when we had all these brilliant federal politicians and bureaucrats who were not busy enough running the federal government; they also wanted to run the provinces.

The decade of federal intervention in health care and education. The decade of centralisation and nationalisation. The decade when, partly in reaction to that federal activism, Separatism in Québec grew and grew, when the PQ became the official opposition in 1970, formed the government in 1976 and held its first referendum in 1980.

I can feel a wave of nostalgia in the room for that blessed period! Yes, the 1970s: the decade of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Under Pierre Trudeau, total government spending went from $13 billion to $109 billion, and from 17% of GDP to 24%! Our national debt went from 25% of GDP in 1968 to 43% in 1984. That’s what they called “progress” back then.

As I told you this year is a time for choosing. Canadians will have to make an important decision. They will have to decide if they want to live in the 21^st century or if they want to go back to the Trudeau years. Does anyone here want to relive those days? No! No but, that’s where the leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, wants to take us.

Ok, Ok some people might think, it is unfair to compare Justin Trudeau with his father and to burden him with the record of his father. After all, is he not his own person?

Well, I’m not the one who created the Trudeau “mystique”. I’m not the one who made the connection in the first place. And, if he is so different from Pierre, then why did Liberals elect him to lead their Party? Tell me?

Is it because of his vast political experience? No.
Is it because of his deep understanding of how the economy works? No.
Is it because of his amazing leadership qualities? No.
Is it because of his original insights in how to keep our country united? No, and you are right!

They elected him because he is a Trudeau! They elected him because they miss the Trudeau years of the 70s and they cherish that legacy. They elected him because they want to go back to that golden age of liberalism and they want to bring back his father’s policies.

So, what kind of choice are we talking about? Over the past nine years, there has been a clear political trend in Quebec: Support for separatism has been steadily going down. There are various explanations for that, but one thing is certain: under our government, Quebecers have had constitutional peace.

Our government respects the Constitution. We respect the division of power and we respect the autonomy of the provinces. That is why there is no appetite for separation in Quebec. It is why Quebecers are happy and proud to be Canadian.

Now, what can we expect if Justin Trudeau becomes Prime Minister? We got a taste of that at the Liberal Convention a year ago, when delegates discussed a whole set of “national strategies” on issues ranging from transportation to energy, mental health, children, water, pharmacare, youth jobs and science.

This is the model of a federal government intervening in our day to day life and meddling in provincial jurisdictions, a model that Justin Trudeau is proposing once again. The same old policies his father pursued 40 years ago.

In his speeches and interviews, Trudeau keeps saying that education is important. We know that education is important – but education is a provincial jurisdiction.

What he wants is to interfere in provincial matters. With that vision of Canada, we will not have constitutional peace in Quebec. A Justin Trudeau government will be destabilizing for our national unity, just like a Pierre Trudeau government was.

Canadians will have a clear choice between us, the Conservatives, respecting the Constitution and provincial jurisdictions and the Liberals creating a bunch of so-called “national programs” with money that we don’t have.

If we continue to do what we’re doing, we won’t have a constitutional crisis in Canada. But if we get a Trudeau government in power that starts to centralize the country, without respecting the Constitution, we can safely predict that separatism in Quebec will rise again.

One of our government’s most spectacular achievements is the reduction of the tax burden on Canadian taxpayers. The ratio of government revenue to GDP is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, at just 14%.

I repeat: The lowest in more than 50 years. Before you-know-who came to power in 1968. That means that the average Canadian family pays $3400 less in taxes today than under the previous Liberal government.

Justin Trudeau promises to reverse this trend. He wants to take back the tax cuts that we gave you. We want to shrink the government to give you back your freedom. But the Liberals want to shrink your paycheck and take away your freedom.

The Liberals are very clear as to what is their priority: not cutting taxes but spending more to stimulate the economy. Justin Trudeau and his Finance critic, Scott Brison, have repeatedly refused to rule out running a deficit again for many more years if they are elected. Doesn’t it sound like “déjà vu”?

Justin Trudeau keeps uttering one economic absurdity after another. Get this: When he reacted to our government’s budget last year, he said there is no need to worry about the deficit. We should aim rather at stimulating the economy, and as he put it: “the budget will balance itself.” For Mr. Trudeau, the more a government spends, the more it stimulates the economy, the more its revenues will grow, and the less we need to worry about the deficit. So, let’s spend our way to prosperity!

No, seriously, Canadians know that if we all spend more than we have, we won’t get richer. It’s called living beyond our means.

One has to wonder then, why the deficit and debt exploded in the 1970s, when his father implemented this type of irresponsible economic policy. Perhaps he wasn’t spending enough?

At the last Liberal convention, delegates heard Larry Summers, an American economist, explain why we need “unconventional support policies”. This is economic jargon for “spending without restraint.” According to him, accumulating more debt is ok when it serves to stimulate the economy.

We all know that: more spending and more borrowing will not act as an economic stimulus but rather as an economic sedative, because less money will be available for the private sector and it is only private sector entrepreneurs who create wealth.

In a video released last year, Justin Trudeau explained that households and provincial governments are heavily indebted, while the federal government has considerably lowered its debt level since the 1990s. So, according to Mr. Trudeau, Ottawa is the only entity that “has room” to rack up more debt. Therefore, it should “step up” and spend more to stimulate the economy.

This is like a couple who have racked up a large amount of consumer debt. They check their three credit cards bills and the husband says to his wife: “Eh! We’ve reached our limit on these two cards but we still have some credit left on this third one. We can get richer if we max out this one too! Let’s go shopping!” Can you imagine a more absurd economic policy?

Mr. Trudeau seems to forget that it’s the same taxpayer who will have to pay back the debts of both levels of government, provincial and federal, as well as his own.

Our government has taken control of the debt. The debt to GDP ratio is at 33%. That is the best performance of all G7 countries. Our plan is to bring that to 25 %. The debt is not something abstract. Servicing the debt costs taxpayers about $30 billion a year. This is as much money as the GST brings into government coffers.

The more we cut down the size of the debt, the fewer resources we will need to pay the interest and the more we will be able to afford to cut yours taxes.

Justin Trudeau and his American adviser still believe in the old Keynesian theory that says governments can create wealth by spending more money. But when the government injects money into the economy where does it come from? It is not falling from the sky!

In reality, every time the government takes an additional dollar in taxes out of someone’s pocket, it’s a dollar that person will not be able to spend or invest. When government spending goes up, private spending goes down. There is no wealth creation.

Government borrowing has the same effect. The private lenders who lend money to the government will have less money to lend to private businesses. When government borrowing and spending go up, private borrowing and spending go down. There is no wealth creation.

It is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and emptying it in the shallow end. Nothing happens! It’s these kinds of policies that ruined our economy in the 1970s.

Prosperity comes not from government spending but from entrepreneurs investing. To stimulate the economy, we need to give entrepreneurs the means to create wealth.

We need to put in place the best possible conditions to allow the private sector to become more productive: By curtailing public spending, cutting taxes, reducing the burden of regulation, and signing free-trade agreements. Growth and progress depend on economic freedom through less government intervention.

More government spending is not the answer to our social and economic challenges. The task is not to reinvent government. The task is to limit government.

The Liberals want a bigger government because they elevate the government and downgrade the citizens. We, Conservatives, want smaller government because ultimately we support individual freedom and personal responsibility. We have faith in people. We have faith that you have the ability, the dignity and the right to make your own decisions and determine your own destiny.

This is a time for choosing: Uncertainty, with more spending, more deficits, more debt and less economic growth and a bigger government with constitutional fights under Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. Or stability, with a steady economic hand, a balanced budget, lower taxes, constitutional peace and more freedom under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. In my mind, the choice is very clear.

Thank you! Merci!

Published on May 12, 2016

Maxime Bernier, MP for Beauce

Manning Centre Conference
Ottawa, February 27, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20191023095834if_/https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FAsnFamTneJw%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26feature%3Doembed&wmode=transparent&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAsnFamTneJw&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FAsnFamTneJw%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=e1208cbfb854483e8443b1ed081912ee&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Dear friends, good afternoon. It’s nice to see everyone here today.

Let me get right to the question we were asked: if I decide to run, how will I do it?

The answer is very clear in my mind: I will run a campaign based on substance and ideas. The whole reason I’m in politics is to defend and promote conservative values. I grew up with these conservative values, they are who I am.

I am from Beauce, a region that is well known as the most entrepreneurial in Quebec. This is where I learned the values that go with entrepreneurship: individual freedom, personal responsibility, integrity, and self-reliance.

But of course, these are also universal values – values that are at the core of Western civilization. Values that have made this country prosperous and a great place to live.

There is a large constituency for these small-government principles. Many people who don’t necessarily consider themselves conservative and who did not vote for us are fed up with a big government overborrowing and overspending. A big government trying to manage our lives from the cradle to the grave. And we can safely bet they will be even more fed up four years from now!

However, I find that we conservatives have not always been keen on openly defending these small-government principles.

Let’s take the issue of corporate subsidies. Free-market economists unanimously decry them as inefficient and a waste of taxpayers’ money. They’re also grossly unfair. They favour some types of businesses at the expense of others. They create a constant demand for government intervention in the economy.

I’m pretty sure that almost everyone in this room understands that instead of handing out government grants, we should reduce taxes and provide a more favourable environment to all businesses. Everyone would benefit.

If there is one conservative economic policy that absolutely everyone should support, this is it.

Yet, during the ten years that we were in power, our government continued to provide billions of dollars in support to businesses. Why? Were we afraid?

It’s not enough to know that a policy is bad. We also have to explain why. Explain it again and again, if we want a majority of Canadians to understand and support the change of policy. Otherwise, we are forced to compromise, to dilute our policies, and contradict our principles.

In every survey, politicians as a group are way down the list in terms of public confidence. I think one reason people are so cynical is that they do not believe us. They don’t see us as defending clear goals and principles. Or acting on these principles.

If we want conservative principles to win the battle, we have to defend them openly, with passion and with conviction. We should not be afraid of saying the hard truths that need to be said.

I am not afraid.

Last November, when Bombardier came knocking at the door of the federal government to ask for another billion dollars in help, I instead proposed to abolish all government subsidies to businesses.

GM in Ontario asked for subsidies at the same time. I also said GM should not be getting any money. I’m willing to say the same thing, whichever company or region is involved.

Several years ago, I was attacked by most of the Quebec political class when I raised the issue of equalization. Quebec has been getting more than half of the money from the equalization program for years. I said to Quebecers I was not proud of that.

I was not afraid to say that to my fellow Quebecers. Because I want us to find a solution to this poor economic performance. Many Quebecers share my concerns. And today, it’s not taboo anymore to raise this issue in Quebec.

But you know what? Manitoba and three Atlantic provinces get even more equalization money per capita than Quebec, and so are even more dependent on Ottawa. Can we say that too?

Instead of beating around the bush, can we be frank and open about the real situation? The point is not to stigmatize some provinces. It is to recognize problems so that we can address them. There is no other way. We must have a relevant discussion about what policies need to be changed to be fair to all parts of our country, and to bring prosperity to all parts of our country.

At a time when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland-and-Labrador are hurting because of the crash in the oil sector, when the government of Ontario is burdening the country’s largest economy with more taxes and more debt, we can’t afford to be complacent.

We Conservatives have to show everyone that we have solutions. Not solutions involving Ottawa redistributing money from some regions to others. But solutions based on a freer economy, on responsibility and fairness.

If I decide to run, what kind of candidate will I be?

First of all, I will reach out to all Conservative members, to all Canadians. Listen and talk to them dans les deux langues officielles.

One of our colleagues, Kevin O’Leary, said in an interview a couple of weeks ago that he did not need to learn French to become prime minister. He said he’s always been amused by politicians who take French classes and try to speak French in Quebec City when everybody answers them in English.

Well, Kevin, when you go to restaurants and tourist places in Quebec City, of course, people will answer in English. As they do in Amsterdam, Vienna and Rome. They want your business! It doesn’t mean you can govern Italy without speaking Italian.

When I visit every region of our great country, it won’t be as a tourist.

I want to be a unifying candidate.

Quebec was the bright spot for our party in the last election. It was the only province where we increased our number of seats, from five to twelve. But there are 66 more seats to contest. And I know I can sell conservative ideas to Quebecers and also to all Canadians.

Many years ago, a journalist described me as “the Albertan from Quebec” because I sounded like a Western Conservative, despite my bad accent in English.

But there is actually no such thing as a Western Conservative or a Quebec or an Atlantic Canada Conservative. There are only Conservatives.

If I decide to run, it will be to reaffirm that only the Conservative Party of Canada can insure that we will be a secure, stable and prosperous country.

But I also want to fire up the imagination of Canadians with how much more free, dynamic, and successful we could become if we applied conservative values more consistently.

That’s how I will do it if I decide to run…

Thank you.

Donate!

Published on May 12, 2016

Maxime Bernier, MP for Beauce

Conservative Futures
Barrie, Ontario, March 19, 2016

Thank you very much Alex for organizing this exciting conference and for inviting me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191023095843if_/https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FEe57txSMo8o%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26feature%3Doembed&wmode=transparent&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEe57txSMo8o&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FEe57txSMo8o%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=e1208cbfb854483e8443b1ed081912ee&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

It’s a great pleasure to meet again so many Conservative friends from Ontario. And to share this stage with my esteemed colleagues. It’s interesting to see that the number of “future Conservative leaders” keeps going up. We Conservatives like competition, don’t we!

So, to get to the topic of today’s conference: How we can ensure that Conservatives have a bright future? And that the future in Canada is Conservative?

It’s obviously very important to defend the values of individual freedom and responsibility, the principles of small government and free markets.

You know that I am a big fan of these ideas. I have been fighting for them for many years and I will continue to do so. They are the reason I went into politics. They are central to who we are.

But defending these principles is not enough. Today I want to argue that to ensure their success and our success, we have to make them inseparable from the idea of fairness.

We live in an era of unprecedented wealth, of incredible technological feats. We live longer than any previous generation, and in better health, thanks to the rule of law and the free markets that are the basis of Western civilization.

Yet, many Canadians are dissatisfied with their lot. They see unfairness everywhere. They think the one percent have it too good at the expense of the poor and middle classes. They resent the power of big business. They think their region or province is not getting its fair share.

I believe they have a point. But they are wrong when they blame the rich and capitalism for all this unfairness. And when they support those in the Liberal Party and the NDP who promise to solve these problems with more government intervention. Because the real culprit is big government.

Take the issue of government subsidies to businesses. Free-market economists unanimously decry them as inefficient and a waste of taxpayers’ money. They bring a misallocation of resources. They create a constant demand for government intervention in the economy.

We know that they make no sense from an economic point of view. In a free-market economy, either a business is profitable, and then it doesn’t need government subsidies. Or it’s not profitable, and in this case it should be restructured, or sold, or shut down, so that it stops destroying wealth instead of creating it.

Yet, governments continue to distribute billions of dollars to businesses every year.

Subsidies are also grossly unfair. They favour some businesses at the expense of others.

Is it fair that a small entrepreneur here in Barrie should be forced to pay taxes to funds subsidies to Bombardier, or GM, or any other business run by millionaires? Is it fair to have struggling businesses across the country compete for resources with well-connected or trendy industries that can outbid them with the help of government grants?

No it’s not fair. But the culprit is not the free market. It’s big government.

This week, the Trudeau government will unveil its first budget. Its deficit could be as big as 30 billion dollars. There is no end in sight to this red ink. Some analysts are predicting that 150 billion dollars will be added to the debt in the next five years.

The government says it has to invest in infrastructures to kick start the economy. But we are not in a recession. And in any case, only a fraction of the proposed spending is going to be for actual infrastructures, capital improvements that will boost productivity and provide long-term benefits. The rest is for social spending that the Liberals call “social infrastructures.”

Because it wants to please everyone, to answer the demands of every special interest, and to solve every problem, this government has already lost control of its finances, barely a few months after its election. And who will have to pay for this? Young Canadians of course.

Already, 10% of government revenues goes to reimbursing the debt. When they are born, Canadian babies already owe many tens of thousands of dollars, which they will have to reimburse in one way or another in the course of their life. Perhaps this is why they start crying as soon as they arrive in this world! Is it fair to burden them with our irresponsible spending?

Big government is fundamentally, irrevocably unfair. A bigger government means a government that taxes more, spends more, gets deeper into debt, and regulates more.

It’s a government that forces consumers to pay more for goods and services by protecting industries from competition and creating barriers to trade. Is that fair?

It’s a government that forces citizens to be content with inefficient government services by preventing private alternatives to emerge. Is that fair?

It’s a government that crushes private initiative and the dreams of young entrepreneurs by creating barriers to entry and making capital scarce. Is that fair?

The more a government pretends to solve problems with these reckless policies, the more injustice, inequality and unfairness it creates.

Defenders of big government keep saying that we need more government programs and more government spending to help the poor, because they are being unfairly treated in a free economy.

But that’s complete nonsense! Hundreds of millions of utterly poor people have been lifted out of poverty in China, in India and other third world countries in recent decades. Is it because they have bigger governments? No, it’s because big government has receded. And these countries have finally adopted the basic free-market policies that we in the West have had for two hundred years.

The only way to help the poor is to give them the means to take control of their own lives. Not to send them bigger cheques and keep them in their dependent status. As John F. Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Those who claim that the way to help the poor is through bigger government are completely misguided.

Big government hurts the poor by slowing down economic growth and wealth creation. Is that fair?

Big government reduces opportunities for the poor by killing job creation with excessive taxes and regulation. Is that fair?

Big government creates poverty traps and treats the poor in a paternalistic way instead of like responsible citizens. Is that fair?

Fairness means that everyone has a chance to succeed.

As Conservatives, we don’t believe that government intervention is a solution for everything. For us, government should ideally set up and enforce the basic rules of life in society. And then, leave individuals free to cooperate among themselves to provide for their wants. Government should not intervene to solve each and every problem on the road to a utopian and unrealistic vision of society.

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

We should proudly claim the moral high ground when it comes to offering the vision of a more equitable society. And never let anyone tell us that Conservatives don’t care about fairness, don’t care about redressing injustice.

On the contrary, small-government principles and policies are the only way to guarantee equal rights and opportunities for all. They are the only way to offer a fair deal to all sectors of the economy, to all regions of the country, to all Canadians.

But to convince Canadians that this is the case, we have to defend these principles consistently, openly, with passion and with conviction.

Then, and only then, can we ensure that the future will be Conservative.

Thank you.