Calgary Speech: My vision of conservatism
On January 21, 2010, I gave this speech on my vision of conservatism to members of the Calgary Centre Conservative Party Association who had invited me. This is the text of my speech, which you can also watch on these video clips.
Thank you very much Lee [Richardson - MP for Calgary Centre] for this very nice introduction.
Good morning everyone.
I’m very grateful to your riding associations for inviting me and to you all for being here today. I feel very privileged, as a Member of Parliament, to be able to discuss the matters and principles that unite us as conservatives.
As you may know, my journey in politics has been somewhat bumpy. But I very much enjoy my most recent role as an MP. It gives me more time to visit constituency associations and meet people like you. It also gives me more time to think about policy and even write and talk about it, which is impossible when you have very heavy responsibilities.
I started a blog almost a year ago, where you can see YouTube videos of me discussing monetary policy and various other topics. I believe I am the only MP in Ottawa who runs such a blog. All the others understand that it’s useless to try to compete with funny videos of cats and dogs and Hollywood celebrities!
Whatever you’ve read in the newspapers, the first thing you should know about me is that I am from the Beauce. The region along the Chaudière River south of Quebec City.
The Beauce is unique in Quebec. It is well known as the most entrepreneurial region of the province. This is where I learned the values that go with entrepreneurship: individual freedom, personal responsibility, integrity, and self-reliance.
Because I often talk about these values, some people in the media have described me as “the Albertan from Quebec”! This is a compliment, by the way. I wish the media was always this nice to me.
Of course, they are also universal values – values that are at the core of Western civilization and are shared by millions of Canadians. Values that have made this country prosperous and a great place to live.
And I believe you will agree with me – they very much are conservative values. Values that distinguish us from our political opponents.
When a problem arises, our opponents think that more government intervention is always the solution. As Ronald Reagan once said, these people tend to see the role of government in three steps: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.
For us conservatives, on the contrary, 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.
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, from a conservative perspective, don’t ask what your government can do for you; ask your government to get out of the way, so that you can be free to take responsibility for yourself, for your family, and for everyone else that you care about.
Good government policy gives individuals the opportunity to dream and to realize their dreams; it does not impose the dreams of some on everyone. I went into politics to defend this kind of policy.
Now, let’s face it, this perspective, based on freedom, personal responsibility and self-reliance, is not that fashionable nowadays.
Over the past hundred years, government has grown to gigantic proportions. It intervenes in almost every aspect of our lives. It tries to plan economic development. It tells us if we may or may not cut down a tree on our own property. It takes care of us from the cradle to the grave.
We got to a situation where every child that is born is already burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. And if you take all levels of government into account, about half the wages of working people in this country goes to fund all this government intervention.
Why did this happen? Economists and political scientists who belong to a school of thought called “Public Choice” have tried to explain this dynamic. Their research shows how particular groups have a strong interest in getting organized to put pressure on politicians.
These special interest groups want subsidies, trade protection, more generous social programs, a fiscal or legal privilege, regulation that favours them and keeps out competition. Any favour they get from the government can potentially bring them huge benefits.
Of course, each of us will have to pay for it. But in our case, the amount we pay for each measure is not significant enough to justify getting organized to oppose it. You won’t go to meetings and demonstrate in the street to oppose a particular program that will cost you ten dollars. But the small group of people who get 100 million dollars have a huge interest in getting organized.
It’s very hard for politicians to say no to these lobbies. Because they have the means to hijack debates, quickly mobilize support and fuel controversies in the media. On the other hand, nobody hears what the silent majority has to say even if they are the ones paying the bill.
So, there is a fundamental imbalance in political debates. On one side, you have concentrated benefits to special interest groups who have a strong incentive to do their lobbying; on the other side, you have dispersed costs that fall on society at large.
That’s how government grows and grows. That’s how we become less and less free. And more and more dependent on government.
What should we, as conservatives, do to reverse this trend?
One way to change the terms of the debate would be to announce that the government is not going to grow anymore.
I know that we are going through some very difficult economic circumstances and that this is not a realistic proposal for the coming budget. But let’s try a thought experiment.
Last year, the federal government’s total expenses were about 250 billion dollars. You can do a lot of things with 250 billion dollars! From a historical perspective, it’s a gigantic amount of resources.
What if we decided that this is more than enough? That expenses are not going to grow anymore?
And I’m not saying zero growth adjusted for inflation and population or GDP increase. Just zero growth.
The overall budget is frozen at 250 billion. From now on, any government decision has to be taken within this budgetary constraint.
Every new government program, or increase in an existing program, has to be balanced by a decrease somewhere else.
We no longer have debates about how much more generous the government can be with this or that group, as if the money belonged to the government instead of taxpayers. The silent majority’s interests are always being protected.
The focus of the debate is shifting to a determination of priorities: what are the most important tasks for government to achieve with the money we have? Is this government function really important and should we have more of it? Then what should we do less or stop doing and leave in the hands of the free market, voluntary organisations and individual citizens?
That would be quite a change, don’t you think? A commitment to Zero Budget Growth could become a powerful symbol of fiscal conservatism, just like the “No Deficit” consensus was, to some extent, until the advent of the global economic crisis. But the consequences would be much deeper.
It would mean that every year, the relative size of government would be smaller. It would force politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and everybody else to stop thinking that your salaries are just there to grab for their own benefit. And because of the budgetary constraints, Canadians would have a lot more confidence that we’re not wasting their money.
We have to convince people that we’re not simply aiming to be better managers of a bigger government; we are aiming to be better managers of a smaller government.
There is a large constituency for these small-government principles. But because there are no lobbies to defend them, they get lost in the debates.
We have to act as the lobby of the silent majority. The silent majority who are tired of working to pay for special interests. The silent majority who are dismayed at seeing their freedom curtailed at every turn. The silent majority who are losing hope that life will get better for them and their children.
It is not always possible of course. There are political realities that cannot be overlooked. But being pragmatic is not enough. In the long run, there are political gains to be made by telling people the hard truth, and not just what they want to hear or what is politically correct.
And not just telling it; doing it too! We have to justify our actions on the basis of these principles.
When I was Industry minister, I was asked to support a new import tariff on bicycles. There was a big Canadian bicycle manufacturer that could not compete with bicycles made in Asia and threatened to lay off workers. So, in order to save over a hundred jobs, the solution was to force all those young Canadians buying a new bicycle to pay $67 more. That would have made all these Canadian families poorer, just to benefit a particular industry.
I said no. Even though the manufacturer was in my own riding, in the Beauce. The free market is not just an abstract concept that you mention when it is politically expedient, and that you forget when it is not. If you want people to believe you, you have to put your principles in practice.
I can tell you that people understood that in my riding. They respected my decision, because they knew why I had taken it. They could see that every time it was possible, I would defend the interest of the silent majority instead of particular interests. And in the long term, they would benefit more.
The confrontation between interest groups and the silent majority was again the central theme in what was by far the most important file I handled as a member of cabinet, telecommunications deregulation. Contrary to what you often hear, industry regulation rarely protects ordinary citizens. It usually protects some favoured players at the expense of others – and in particular at the expense of consumers.
Getting rid of obsolete and costly regulation in this crucial sector for our economy proved a lot more difficult than I thought. I had to face opposition from groups and businesses who benefitted from current rules. The strongest opposition came from my own civil servants at Industry Canada. Bureaucrats don’t like it when they lose their influence and their power to regulate.
It was quite a fight but in the end, we carried out what some observers consider the most important reform of the telecommunications sector in several decades. It brought more competition, more choices and lower prices for Canadian consumers.
As you know, 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 perceive us as defending clear goals and principles. Or acting on these principles.
But if you are here this morning, it’s because you don’t share this cynicism. The reason you are involved in a political party is that you want to make a better world for yourself, your family, your community, for all Canadians. You believe it’s possible. And you’re looking for ways to make it happen.
I certainly would not be here today if I did not passionately believe in those ideals. Not after everything I went through two years ago. It would not be worth it.
So, I’m offering you a challenge.
Let’s restore public confidence in politics.
Let’s redouble our efforts to defend the principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility and smaller government.
I don’t think there is any other way to reach our goals. If we want conservative principles to win the battle, we have to defend them openly, with passion and with conviction.
And what could be wrong with giving a voice to the silent majority of Canadians who believe in these principles? After all, in “silent majority”, there’s the word “majority”!
Thank you!
You can leave a response.
Hey, you know what would be awesome? If instead of just talking about offering Canadians a conservative/libertarian option, you actually did it. This would require you to take off the collar that Harper put on you. Topple Harper. Replace him and reform the CPC or leave to make an alternative to destroy it. Without real action-in policy-these words are just that.
Hmmm,
Where to start?
Cytotoxic bites hard, but has a good point, especially in light of the announcement by Prentice that GHG’s need controls *because of* global warming, or climate change, or pressure from scientists (willing to manipulate data), and environmentalists subsidized by us.
Have you not seen what has happened to the whole sham and scam of the UN IPPC reports, and the Climate e-mail scheme?
Start there. Show us your ‘conservative’ heart on one topic that *will* hurt us.
Then we can see if we can put your past trials behind us.
Then we will see if you have the information and courage to challenge your leader, and Prentice.
I am grateful though to see this video now. I have not been following your path for some time. We will take any hint of light coming from politicians stepping out of any box they built for themselves.
Vraiement bien comme vision, je la partage. Le conservatisme est bien expliqué.
J’aime particulièrement le concept de la croissance zéro dont on ne parle pas dans les perspectives du déficits zéro. J’en parle sur mon blogue: http://droitemonde.blogspot.com/2010/01/la-croissance-budgetaire-zero.html
Private banks create money from nothing, and then charge us interest. When the loan is paid back, if ever, you’ve paid back more than the loan amount. But WHERE does that extra money come from? Another loan, from someone else. It is because money IS debt! It is IMPOSSIBLE to pay of all the debt. The total Canadian government debt is about equal to ALL the Canadian dollars in existence in the M2 money supply. Banks create it from nothing, and charge us interest, while they sit back and get rich. Why do you think the banks always have the nicest buildings in town?
Canada used to have gold, until it was betrayed by a Prime Minister I won’t even name here since I don’t want to tarnish this nice web page.
I highly recommend you go to: http://www.ohcanadamovie.com which explains money from a Canadian perspective.
Also, you can go to “Money As Debt” also by a Canadian: http://tinyurl.com/yjv2jho
Also, the Money Masters, which explains how international bankers hijacked America with the creation of the Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE bank, never audited, and totally unconstitutional since the US Constitution gives CONGRESS the authority to COIN money in gold and silver only. http://tinyurl.com/yk43c54
I wish you were my MP. I like my guy too, but it’s nice to see an MP open up like this in a public forum, at the risk of having his words used against him…
BRAVO !!!!!!
Continuez sur cette lancée, je crois, également, qu’avec des bonnes explications, vous aurez la majorité silencieuse à vos côtés!
Le plus gros défi est d’éduquer le Québec maintenant…
The real problem is fractional reserve banking. Make it illegal to do fractional banking, and force banks to back their deposits with some sort of commodity and you kill the problem of inflation, depressions and boom and busts cycles. If it wasn’t for fractional banking, we would have a system where governement would have limited power, international bankers would stop to expand at the expanse of the population, and we would have unprecedented economic growth, as well as growth in our living standards. That is why i advocate 100% reserve free banking. Unfortunatelly, with public education and controlled medias, the population has grown totally ignorant in finance and banking education, therefore making it so easy to control us with our own money.
Thanks for taking the time to blog, you’re a brave guy! I’m happy to see a politician talking fiscal conservatism, but I must say a couple of things:
-I wish the libertarian wing of the fiscal conservative movement would be more specific and less PC chilled when finding areas to cut spending. That means taking on special interest groups – and I’m not talking bike manufacturers here. Please don’t leave the heavy lifting to the social conservatives here, you guys gotta pull your weight too.
-It is not possible to be a social “liberal” and a fiscal conservative. In the biggest study of its kind it was proven that the most socially “liberal” members of the USA congress, for example, are not surprisingly also the most spendthrift. There is not fiscal conservative Barney Frank, never has been, when push comes to shove they are aligned with too many special interest groups.
Open immigration, pay equity, human rights tribunals, unions both private and public sector, employment equity, multibillion dollar apologies and restitution to various grievance groups – these things not only cost lots of taxpayer dough, they harm the economy.
It’s refreshing to hear a speech such as this. As a Conservative, it’s so easy to get caught up in the issue of the moment – prorogation, Haiti, our Afghanistan mission, etc., which are matters of ongoing debate. To hear the ‘Big Picture’ argument, framed so persuasively, is long overdue and is worth broadcasting to all, especially all Conservatives and conservatives, to remind ourselves of the standard, against which, all our policy discussions should be measured. Merci et bon chance M. Bernier.
Well put Sir.
I certainly concur with what Mr. Simmons has to say. I’ll take the liberty of also stating that if you stick to your ideals…….you will win out in the long run. Small “l” liberalism as we know it is dying within the grass roots of Canada. The 416 area code needs further enlightenment and an element of objectivity that is yet possessed. Perhaps their sense of entitlement has distorted their perception of reality. What appears to be “the obvious” to you and I has turned into a convoluted mess in 28 ridings. This conundrum MUST be solved…..expeditiously I might add.
Your speech was very thorough and quite logical at the same time. Your talking points were presented in a clear and concise fashion. I can most certainly see why you are a successful parliamentarian. Rest assured monsieur, your past media debacle is trivial. Your future political input is paramount.
Respectfully
JR
Well done Mr. Bernier … however you must speak to the people and not limit yourself to the party … voters are able to understand the common sense of smaller government, defined, limited, targeted budgets, fiscal discipline, accountability, transparent and ethical management no matter which party holds power.
We can understand that our national economy must not be divided along party lines but rather must be united as one interlocking system of labour, trade and investment. Responsible restrained governance promotes a vibrant capitalist economy which maximizes opportunity for every person across party lines.
Governments role is not to promote division but rather to rouse the industry and energy of people at all levels, to enhance competition and make it fair, to ensure that no group, populist or elite, is able to erect barriers that would deprive its citizens of an open field and a fair chance.
It is a philosophy that celebrates fiscal responsibility, development, mobility and work wherever those things might be generated.
Discrediting good sound policy, promoted by either party, only increases the pervasive feelings of uncertainty, now the single biggest factor holding back investment, job creation and growth.
We must not trade dynamic optimism for combative divisiveness. Speak common sense to the people Mr. Bernier. We’re listening and applaud your vision.
I wish you could be my MP. I also wish the Conservatives would actually _cut_ spending instead of increasing it. A real stimulus package would have been to cut income taxes. The money would have gone to those who could spend it the wisest, plus the administrative costs would have been zero, and the effect immediate. The idea of a fixed budget is not a bad one. But instead of fixing it at $250b, why not something like $100b? Sell all the money losing crown corporations (e.g. CBC), cut all the transfer payments, and cut the social programs that should really be up to the provinces, etc. That would afford a drop in the personal income tax to 10% for everyone, and you will see a massive boom in the economy.
Thanks for being a Conservative. Any chance you could convince the rest of the caucus to be Conservative too?
It’s too bad that Mr Harper chose the tax cut and spend policies of George Bush – Buying the highest office of the land does not get the votes or the popularity that is needed to ensure Canada’s future.
Harper’s legacy is a big deficit – An added debt burden that Canadians had worked hard to reduce and now our kids must bear the costs of this governments excess and damage to our economy, reputation in the world and dilution of democracy.
Congratulations on a rare, brave and honest speech. Would that it received more media attention — and that the “silent majority” had more opportunity to applaud.
Votre vision de l’État est un peu désuète. Vous voulez couper les dépenses de l’État canadien jusqu’à 250 milliards de dollars jusqu’à la fin des temps. Économiquement parlant, c’est utopique comme vision. Dans 50 ans, combien vaudra 250 milliards de dollars comparativement à aujourd’hui?? Cela n’a pas de bon sens. L’État est essentiel pour la cohésion d’un pays et à son bon fonctionnement. Si on irait dans votre vision, on devrait tout simplement se débarrasser de l’État. Le gros des dépenses de l’État va surtout aux salaires de ses fonctionnaires, dépenses militaire (et votre gouvernement veut les augmenter), etc. Dans les provinces, se sont l’éducation, la santé qui prennent la grosse place dans les dépenses. Cherchez-vous à détruire l’équilibre entre les plus nantis et les moins nantis?? Nous ne vivions pas seul dans notre coin, nous vivons en société et tous doit être solidaire entre eux. J’ai une phrase pour vous: la liberté de l’un s’arrête là ou commence celle de l’autre. Le libre-marché n’est pas suffisant pour bloquer nos désirs, la crise financière et économique que l’on connait en est la preuve par la déréglementation des dernières décennies. Je ne suis pas communiste mais réaliste, vous êtes conservateur. Qui profitera de cette baisse de l’État, les grandes entreprise, les riches, surement pas les classes moyen et les moins nantis.
Cordialement Fx
@ FX
“la crise financière et économique que l’on connait en est la preuve par la déréglementation des dernières décennies.”
Vous ne pouvez pas être plus faux, là-dessus. C’est exactement l’inverse. La crise a été causé par une sur-règlementation de l’économie!
Donnez moi un exemple d’une trop grande réglementation.
@Fx
La reglementation des taux d’interet, qui ont ete trop bas pour trop longtemps!
I took the liberty of sending this speech to, as far as I can tell, your kindred spirit on the other side of the pond, Daniel hannan.
When you have time, take a look at his blog, http://www.hannan.co.uk and I am sure that you will see things which dovetail with your perspective.
Mr. Bernier, this is a very sensible speech. But unfortunately our electoral system forces us to vote for parties, not ideas. How can libertarian-leaning Canadians support the Conservative Party when big spenders like Mr. Harper are running the show, and those advising fiscal prudence, such as yourself, remain on the sidelines?