Building Canada Through Freedom Essay Pierre Poilievre

https://archive.org/stream/building-canada-through-freedom-essay-pierre-poilievre/Building%20Canada%20Through%20Freedom%20Essay%20-%20Pierre%20Poilievre_djvu.txt

near Banff, Alberta

Pierre Poilievre, photogr aphed am

Pierre Marcel

Poilievre

woi we Canadians

seldom recognize It, the mos

important guardian of our living standards is freedom: the

freedom to earn a living and share the fruits of our labour with

loved ones, the freedom to build personal prosperity through risk

taking and a strong work ethic, the freedom of thought and

speech, the freedom to make personal choices, and the collective

freedom of citizens to govern their own affairs democratically.

Who is Pierre Poilievre?

Pierre is a self-confessed political junkie with a passion for public debating and a special

interest in international relations. He wants to pursue a career in business, and enjoys

hiking in the nearby Rocky Mountains with his pet corgi, Champ.

Pierre Poilievre was born in Calgary

and is in the second year of a

commerce program at the University

of Calgary. l age 20

As Prime

age

what

would do

to improve

living standards

is not nearly as

important as

what I would

nott

Government’s job is constantly to find ways to

remove itself from obstructing such freedoms.

Human beings are graced with the gifts of

creativity, wisdom, and ingenuity. The best way

for a society to go about improving its living

standards is to allow citizens to apply these

qualities to the challenges of everyday life.

Asking a Prime Minister to single-handedly

improve the living standards of 30 million of the

world’s brightest is about as realistic as asking

him to take to an Olympic sprinting track to

help a line-up of world-class athletes reach the

finish line. The more the government becomes

involved in the race, the greater the number of

hurdles competitors will encounter.

Therefore, as Prime Minister, what I would do

to improve living standards is not nearly as

important as what I would not do. As Prime

Minister, I would relinquish to citizens as much

of my social, political, and economic control as

possible, leaving people to cultivate their own

personal prosperity and to govern their own

affairs as directly as possible.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

AND FINANCIAL FREEDOM

A nation’s living standards are intimately

connected to its productivity, average disposable

income, and economic growth. All of these

factors have suffered in Canada over the past

several years. In fact, in terms of productivity

growth, Canada placed dead last in the G7

between 1974 and 1998. More depressing is

the fact that more people live below Statistics

Canada’s low-income cut-off line (LICO line)

than five years ago. This at a time when a

growing number of our brightest young people

are fleeing to the United States, where they see

more opportunity. To reverse these trends,

Canada must capitalize on its innovation by

allowing investment to flow unhindered through

the economy. If we are to retain our brightest

minds, we must allow skilled workers to earn

rewarding salaries, without losing half of their

earnings to a punitive tax regime. Finally, we

must ensure that economic conditions are ripe

for job creation, so that low-income Canadians

can gain the pride of stable employment.

Canada can accomplish these objectives through

a sweeping program of tax relief. Ideally, this

relief would be implemented drastically and

immediately. However, an incremental approach

is required to ensure stability and affordability.

As Prime Minister, I would undertake a three-

pronged plan to empower taxpayers.

The first step is to recognize that Canada is

blessed with some of the most educated and

skilled entrepreneurs in the world. However,

our ability to capitalize on this resource is

obstructed by the difficulty business people face

in attracting investment. Acquiring capital is

essential to a firm’s ability to finance new

technology and engage exceptional employees.

The wages and working conditions of those

employees are also correlated to capital

formation. For example, if companies were able

to raise more dollars when offering shares or

I would recognize that payroll taxes are a ball and chain attached

8 pa) f

to the ankles of all working people.

bonds, they could afford to increase the

magnitude of their operation, which would then

require more labourers. The law of supply and

demand dictates that an increased need for

employees naturally drives wages up and

unemployment down. Higher wages result

in improved living standards for labourers.

Through its tax on capital gains, the government

impedes this process and penalizes successful

investors. The capital gains levy takes a portion

of an entrepreneur’s earnings on the sale of an

asset. Consequently, it is more expensive to

invest in new opportunities. Because the capital

gains tax applies each time an investor sells one

asset to purchase another, investors are forced to

pass up potential buying opportunities. As a

result, the process of capitalization takes longer,

and new ideas are slower in coming to fruition.

This phenomenon is known as the “lock-in”

effect. It is responsible for billions of dollars in

unrealized capital and thousands of missed

opportunities for investors to make money and

build the economy.

As Prime Minister, I would free the eagle from

its cage. By eliminating the capital gains tax, we

could liberate billions of dollars in locked-in

investment, allowing Canada’s world-class

entrepreneurs to cultivate a more prosperous

nation. The resulting increase in economic

activity would likely make the exercise revenue-

positive for the government. In the event that it

is not, I would eliminate all forms of corporate

subsidies to cover the difference. This act would

require humility, as it would reduce the span of

my control over the economy and return power

to citizens everywhere. The philosophy of my

government would be that a dollar left in the

hands of consumers and investors is more

productive than a dollar spent by a politician or

bureaucrat.

The second component of my program of

financial freedom would be targeted at those

who need it most: Canada’s less fortunate. These

Canadians would benefit indirectly from the

elimination of the capital gains tax, through

enhanced job opportunities and strengthened

wages. However, as a nation we must also have

the compassion to address the crushing burden

of taxes paid directly by the working poor. As

Prime Minister, I would mitigate this imposition

by raising the personal exemption. This relief

would benefit all taxpayers, but particularly the

poor. Currently, the exemption of $6,500 places

unrealistic expectations on lower-income

working people.

As Prime Minister, I would set in motion a trend

of a continuously rising personal exemption. The

bar at which Canadians would begin forfeiting

their income to the government would ascend

higher each year. To institutionalize this concept

and ensure its sustainability, I would connect the

exemption to economic growth. My government

would increase the personal exemption by the

same percentage that the economy grows in any

given year. For example, if economic growth is

three per cent in a year when the personal

exemption is $10,000, the exemption would

jump to $10,300. The result would be that

taxpayers (especially low-income taxpayers),

not the government, would feel the rewards of

our nation’s economic gain. And to ensure that

growing prices do not swallow these savings,

I would also adjust the exemption to match the

annual rate of inflation.

| Third, I would recognize that payroll taxes are

a ball and chain attached to the ankles of all

working people. Payroll taxes come in the form

of the Canada Pension Plan (cpp) and

Employment Insurance (£1). Premiums on both

have quickly risen. These taxes erode the income

of wage earners, some of whom are struggling to

provide for themselves and their families.

Because the employer is required to pay half, it

| also becomes more expensive to hire workers

and create new jobs.

Interestingly enough, however, there are

resources available to significantly reduce

this punishing burden. It is projected that the

program could fill government coffers with

a $20 billion annual surplus by the 2000-01

fiscal year. Past surpluses were not set aside for

rainy days, but shifted instead into the general

revenue stream for spending purposes. This

scheme is fundamentally unjust to working

Canadians, who expect all their premiums to be

devoted to securing their living standards in the

event of job loss. As Prime Minister, I would

By eliminating

the capital gains

tax, we could

liberate billions

of dollars in

locked-in

investment,

allowing Canada’s

world-class

entrepreneurs

to cultivate a

more prosperous

nation.

ment that is not directly guided by the wishes of its citizens

O secure the freedoms of those citizens.

reduce £1 premiums progressively to a

sustainable level, with small portions set aside

for periods of recession, when unemployment is

more formidable. Any surplus above and beyond

what is needed for the E1 program would be

returned to the people who earned it. Workers

and employers would receive a rebate, which

r would refund the government’s actuarial

miscalculation, plus interest.

All of this would be impossible without

e a leader willing to make difficult choices. If

ant my government were to drastically reduce taxes,

I would need to streamline or eliminate items

of expenditure to make up the difference. It is

impractical to name all of those items here: the

list would be too long. Instead, I will share my

philosophical approach to dealing with this

challenge. My government would dissect every

significant expense and ask one simple question:

“Would the money be better spent if left in the

hands of the workers and entrepreneurs who

earned it?” If the answer is yes, the pending

program would disappear.

Qo

These measures would shift resources away

from the unproductive and towards the

productive. The rewards for citizens would

include an improved quality of life and a new

standard of independence from the state.

Engendered by this independence would be

a spirit of hard work and entrepreneurship that

could cultivate Canadian living standards. When

the poor or unemployed realize that they can earn

a decent wage, without forfeiting large sums to

a distant bureaucracy, they will be empowered

to make greater efforts. A more productive

economy, powered by recovering consumers and

investors, will provide jobs for the unemployed.

And those gifted Canadian innovators with new

approaches to conducting business or providing

services will enjoy a more investment-friendly

environment in which to raise capital. All of these

benefits would accrue to society because of

financial freedom from government.

DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM

Canada’s democracy is only as sound as the

institutions that uphold it. Unfortunately,

through neglect and antiquated traditions,

Canadian political institutions have caused our

democracy to wither. The upper chamber of

Parliament is impotent and outdated. Almost all

of our most powerful civil servants and judicial

officials are appointed by one individual. So

too are the members of the Senate. This system

opens itself to patronage, as it detaches a

government from its people. A government that

is not directly guided by the wishes of its citizens

will fail to secure the freedoms of those citizens.

And, as we have seen above, less freedom results

in weaker living standards.

At the core of the problem is the concentration

of power in the hands of the head of govern-

ment. As Prime Minister, I would look to find

ways to empower citizens, while reducing my

own span of control. My objective would be to

make the ballot box, not the Prime Minister’s

Office, the most powerful institution in Canada.

REFRESHING PARLIAMENT

Canada’s Parliament is currently dominated

by one individual, whose party gained the

confidence of only 38 per cent of Canadians

in the last election. Two-thirds of the governing

caucus currently represent ridings in only one

province — Ontario. This leaves a large number

of disenchanted voters. However, the Prime

Minister has the power to ignore the interests

of these people. Because of our bicameral system,

Canada has a remarkable opportunity to remedy

such democratic stagnation. My first action

as Prime Minister would be to propose a

completely original arrangement for the Senate.

Each province would be allotted one senator,

with one additional senator hailing from the

territories. Elections would be held every six

years, making it a less political body. However,

concerns would arise over the fact that a

populous province like Ontario would have

merely the same representation as Prince Edward

Island. To soothe this concern, I would alter the

rules that determine how bills are passed into

law. Any major piece of legislation would require

the support of at least seven of the senators,

representing a combined 50 per cent of the

national population. Legislation would be

considered important if it involved things like

My objective would be to make the ballot box, not the Prime

Minister’s Office, the most powerful institution in Canada.

budgetary matters, declarations of war, national

economic policy, international agreements, etc.

This legislative formula is almost identical

to the amending formula of the Constitution.

Such a system would address all the legitimate

concerns raised about other proposals for Senate

reform. Critics of the triple-E Senate (elected,

equal, and effective) argue that it gives equal

powers to provinces that have significant

population disparities. Under my suggested

changes, bills would require the support of at

least one of Canada’s two largest provinces,

along with significant support in both the

Atlantic provinces and the West. The

government would have to negotiate with all

regions prior to moving ahead with a major

initiative. Influence over the government would

derive from across the country, not just from one

region — and certainly not just from the Prime

Minister’s Office.

After reforming the upper house, I would take

my case for democracy to the House of

Commons. A system of voter recall would be

enacted to ensure that members of Parliament

were accountable to their constituents. Under

this system, a representative would be forced to

resign and seek re-election in the event that, over

a period of three months, 40 per cent of voters

in the riding signed a recall petition. This would

put voters in command of legislators, not the

other way around.

Finally, I would make a personal commitment.

I would resign after serving my second term in

office. The beauty of genuine democracy is that

it permits average citizens to serve their country

in public office. Politics should not be a lifelong

career, and elected officials should not be

allowed to fix themselves in the halls of power

of a nation. If they are permitted to do so,

politicians will devote their time to finding ways

to perpetuate their own power, as opposed to

building on the freedom of their country.

Therefore, I would institute a limit of two

terms for members of Parliament, and return

the House of Commons to tax-paying citizens.

All of these changes would be geared towards

expanding the scope of citizen involvement in

the democratic process. The only way for people

to protect their freedom from government is to

have direct democratic control over their

government. As Prime Minister, I would happily

invest my faith in the wisdom of Canadian

citizens.

CONCLUSION

Anyone who accepts the idea of granting

citizens greater control over their government

and personal affairs must also have confidence

in the strength of the human spirit. Canada is the

greatest nation on Earth because of the

individuals that compose it. If they are granted

greater personal and financial liberty, there are

no bounds to the progress Canada will achieve in

the coming century.

democracy ma

How would you vote?

Will Pierre get your vote? Will he enhance our living standards? Does his case for

e the grade? Vote @ www.asprimeminister.com.

Politics should

not bea lifelong

career,and

elected officials

should not be

allowed to fix

themselves in the

halls of power of

a nation.