It will be hard to oppose Bernier when most agree with him.
The word on Maxime Bernier is that he’s a radical. He wants to do radical things. Canadians don’t l i ke radical things. They l i ke things the way they are — maybe a little better, but largely the same. Bernier therefore isn’t the man the Conservatives should choose as their next leader, because he’s too much the iconoclast to get elected prime minister. That’s the word, anyway.
Maybe the people who think Bernier is too farout for cautious Canadians should pause and t hink back a couple of years, when young Justin Trudeau was considered too shallow and inexperienced to lead the Liberals to victory. He said silly things. He was too much the pretty boy. He came across as far too lightweight to take on flinty- eyed, cool- as- ice Stephen Harper, even if people weren’t wild about Harper.
It turned out the word on Trudeau was wrong: he did indeed say silly things and demonstrate a certain lightness of character, but Canadians were willing to vote for him anyway. The promises he made evidently offset the doubts voters had enough for them to take a chance on the kid.
Those who dismiss Bernier, or worry that he lacks the judgment needed of a prime minister, may be making the same mistake made about Trudeau. The basis of his alleged riskiness is his desire for change, and the policies he proposes for bringing it about. Another word for change is reform. Bernier wants to introduce reforms that will lead to improvements in areas Canada unquestionably needs to improve. Another word for that is “progress.” Bernier could be termed as much a progressive as the self- satisfied left- wingers who have appropriated that label for themselves. Perhaps more so.
He has plans that will appeal to many Canadians. Taken as a whole, his platform is criticized as too ambitious to succeed: by wanting to change so many things at once, he might scare people. That’s always a possibility, but another possibility is that many of the individual proposals he makes may carry enough appeal on their own to win over doubters.
They certainly have the potential for broad appeal. His assertion that equalization is unfair and needs to be rejigged will be seen by many as painfully selfevident. Of $ 17.9 billion in equalization transfers this year, $ 10 billion will go to Quebec. How a large, sophisticated, prosperous province like Quebec — rich in resources and highly educated human capital — can on the one hand claim special status as a nation unto itself while simultaneously demanding 55 per cent of the federal pie as a perennial have- not province is a riddle the rest of the country has never managed to solve. Bernier says the system is “unfair and inefficient” and would freeze it while the formula is reviewed. The only thing weird about that is that a Quebec politician is brave enough to make so brazenly honest a statement about a program that benefits his own province so disproportionately.
He wants to eliminate the trade barriers erected by the provinces. Who doesn’t? Is there someone out there who thinks it’s a good idea for the provinces to needlessly complicate commerce among themselves? Again, the only oddity is that a federal politician has finally suggested using Ottawa’s existing authority to end the costly inefficiencies that successive premiers have shamefully enforced.
His pledge to eliminate supply management is so painfully sensible it even has some Canadians rooting for Donald Trump, who wants to do the same. Hands up all those voters who enjoy overpaying for eggs and dairy products because a community of very prosperous farmers wish to continue enjoying the benefits. He likes free trade. He wants to privatize the post office. He dislikes both corporate welfare and boutique tax credits. So too do many, many Canadians. These are sores Canadian governments have let fester for years, too fearful to address them despite the growing infection they cause. New Democrats would love to get rid of corporate welfare — it was the main theme of their quest for power as far back as 1972. Liberals would dearly like to end supply management and provincial protectionism, but lack the nerve. Could either mount a credible campaign against Bernier because he proposes measures for which they lack the spine? How, exactly, would Trudeau denounce plans to open up telecommunications and air travel to greater competition: by positioning the Liberals as champions of limited choice and higher prices?
If there’s a flaw in Bernier’s formula it’s the certainty that he’d face i mmense opposition from entrenched interests should he get the chance to put his plan into action. If dairy farmers have demonstrated anything, it’s their skill in protecting their pricey and privileged position. The provinces would unite in fury to defend their right to build log jams against better and more efficient trade practices. And an inquiry into equalization would be like Christmas in July for Quebec’s foundering separatists, who would like nothing better than a chance to denounce the country as an anti- Quebec conspiracy bent on stealing its access to a permanent welfare net.
But opponents would run the risk of alienating all those who see the potential benefits of Bernier’s platform. Like Trudeau’s deluge of promises ( mostly unkept so far), Bernier is offering goodies that people want. That many of them would also be good for the country is just icing on the cake. And how many Canadians are resistant to icing?