Comments on: Calgary Speech: My vision of conservatism

By: Olivier L

Olivier L — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:41:41 +0000

Serait-ce possible que vous êtes un closet libertarian M. Bernier? De toute façon, vous êtes la raison pour laquelle je vote conservateur, keep up the good work!

By: Bradley

Bradley — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:09:13 +0000

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?

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:09:29 +0000

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.

By: Cyrus

Cyrus — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:52:24 +0000

@Fx

La reglementation des taux d’interet, qui ont ete trop bas pour trop longtemps!

By: Fx

Fx — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:49:07 +0000

Donnez moi un exemple d’une trop grande réglementation.

By: waried

waried — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:31:58 +0000

@ 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!

By: Fx

Fx — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:04:19 +0000

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

By: Bruce Annan

Bruce Annan — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:25 +0000

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.

By: mit

mit — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:09:24 +0000

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.

By: johndoe124

johndoe124 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:01:28 +0000

Thanks for being a Conservative. Any chance you could convince the rest of the caucus to be Conservative too?

By: Mark Rose

Mark Rose — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:50:41 +0000

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.

By: chevymo

chevymo — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:39:39 +0000

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.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:56:07 +0000

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

By: David Simmons

David Simmons — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:46:27 +0000

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.

By: Self Determinant Anglo

Self Determinant Anglo — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:28:50 +0000

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.

By: Pierre-Olivier Bastien-Dionne

Pierre-Olivier Bastien-Dionne — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:42:09 +0000

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.

By: waried

waried — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:23:07 +0000

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…

By: Hinchey's Store

Hinchey's Store — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:53:37 +0000

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…

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:48:06 +0000

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

By: Pierre-Luc Jean

Pierre-Luc Jean — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:14:46 +0000

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