Pierre Poilievre
Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, for over a century and a half, Canadians took for granted that when people came here from around the world, they left their problems behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot in communities like Amisk, Hardisty, Hughenden, Czar, Metiskow and Lougheed and the MDs of Wainwright, Provost and Flagstaff, who have all raised significant concerns about problems with cellphone coverage and data service, adding to already limited connectivity in…”
“Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what we are for. We are for an affordable Canada, a Canada with growing paycheques and safer streets, which is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister has delivered. This is his record: Count them; there have been five consecutive quarters of declining investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, do people know why the Prime Minister cannot stand to answer a question in the House of Commons? It is because he has been wrong about every single economic issue of the last decade. He was wrong to push bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we should keep half our oil in the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, we do not plan for a restful summer. We plan to fight all summer long against the Liberal recession, Liberal inflation, the rising Liberal cost of living and the rising Liberal crime crisis in our streets. Let us take, for example, investment. The Liberal Prime Minister promised he would increase it.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least the Liberals listened for once. I explained to them that houses are built by plumbers, electricians and carpenters, and the members stood up and said that the building trades build homes. We know who builds homes, but do we know who blocks homes? The Liberals block homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 972 lines we hold for Pierre Poilievre, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 20.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can control the directives he gives his lawyers. We have a very simple system when it comes to lawyers and clients in our legal system. The lawyer advises and the client instructs. The Prime Minister is the client. He has absolute authority to instruct his lawyers however he wants, and right now, the instruction he has given them, as published in litigation guideline 14 on the Government of Canada website, is that they should not defend private property rights. The Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons, puts his hand on his heart and claims he is for property rights. Why is it that he is saying one thing to the Canadian people and the opposite to his lawyers?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bad interpretation of section 35. This interpretation came to pass because the Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights. The judge herself noted that the federal Liberal government and the provincial NDP government of British Columbia had not raised arguments for the seniority of homeowners. By deciding not to present these arguments, they lost in court, so now homeowners are at risk of losing their homes. That is what we are trying to rectify today.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is all an illusion. The Prime Minister says one thing while doing precisely the opposite. That has been the signature trait of his entire prime ministership. He does precisely the opposite of what he says. While he was making those comments in the House of Commons, on his own federal government website was litigation guideline 14, which forbids federal lawyers from defending fee simple property rights in challenges by first nations. It is another example of the Prime Minister providing an illusion of one thing while doing precisely the opposite. If he will actually defend property rights everywhere and always, then he can simply vote for our motion, which requires we defend property rights in court.”
“This is a federal issue where he is the federal defendant. He is the head of the federal government. He, by now, should have come up with a plan to defend the property rights of the people of British Columbia. Four, it calls for immediately convening a parliamentary committee to begin studying how we can save the property rights and the home ownership of the people of British Columbia and all of Canada. It is a four-step action plan that will immediately allow us to step up, do our jobs and defend homeowners. These are people who, in good faith, bought the land, paid down the mortgages and followed the rules. They deserve to have the security and the certainty that they own the homes they live in. Conservatives will fight for them. We will fight for their home, for their land, for their property and for all Canadians.”
“That is why Conservatives have come forward with a solution to clean up the mess the Liberal Prime Minister has made. This motion today calls for the following action. One, it calls for the Prime Minister to cancel litigation guideline 14, the guideline that bans federal lawyers from defending property rights, and replace that guideline with a new one that requires they defend property rights in all such disputes. Two, it calls for a policy that the federal government will not sign anymore agreements with any first nations that do not explicitly protect fee simple property rights as having seniority over all other claims. Three, it calls for the Liberal Prime Minister , within 30 days, to present his plan to protect the property rights of British Columbians. It has been a month since this ruling.”
“It threatens the very economic foundations of our entire land-owning system. Without property rights, there are no economic rights. There is no country in the world where people are able to feed themselves, to house themselves, to prosper and to start businesses without having secure title. It is literally the single biggest determinant of economic prosperity. The great economist de Soto even pointed out that there are literally trillions of dollars of wealth that is deprived of people in third world countries simply because the people who live on the land do not have title of that land and, therefore, cannot build anything, including a home for themselves, on that land. To have a property-owning, free-market democracy, we need to have secure land title.”
“Liberals across the way are trying to downplay the concern, but let me quote Mayor Malcolm Brodie of the City of Richmond, who said, “Property owners in Richmond and throughout the province can no longer rely on their title confirming a fee simple interest as conclusive evidence of absolute ownership of their land. The Court’s untenable decision cannot remain unchallenged.” Clearly, the mayor of the City of Richmond would not be raising the prospect that his own residents do not have clear title over the homes they bought if it were not truly a concern. Frankly, I do not know how the Liberals can deny the consequential impact of a court ruling that says there is one form of title that takes precedence over home ownership fee simple land title. Of course, that is a revolutionary change and an unprecedented change.”
“(1530) The Liberals claim that their framework agreement with the Musqueam has no legal force and it does not matter, which raises the question of why they signed it at all, but what is clear and what legal experts say is that there is no protection for private property rights in that agreement either. All of this raises big concerns not just for Richmond and the Lower Mainland but right across British Columbia, because there are claims on almost the entire province. British Columbia is not a province where land cession has happened through the treaty process. There are going to be countless other claims that will come forward from other nations using the same precedent that came from the Cowichan ruling, which could literally threaten millions of homeowners. In the meantime, investment is paralyzed and suspended.”
“He said nothing; he did nothing. Then the other day, he stood up and spread the illusion that he suddenly supports property rights, all while instructing his lawyers, through an explicit guideline still on the government website, not to defend those same property rights. Already there are reports of over $100 million in investment being cancelled because land title cannot be secured, as a result of the fact that there is no guaranteed collateral for the investors and the lenders. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister directed his Liberal government to sign the Musqueam agreement, which began the process of granting title to the Musqueam over lands that include metro Vancouver, Delta and even the same Richmond lands that the Cowichan decision granted to the Cowichan people, causing an even greater mess.”
“It was the result of the Liberal government refusing to defend property rights in court. The federal government is the defendant in this case. It is named, and frankly, it is the only defendant. The Liberal government passed litigation guideline 14, an instruction from the Liberal cabinet that federal lawyers were not to argue for the seniority of fee simple property rights. The judge noted in her 800-page ruling that this is one of the reasons she could not protect property rights in her decision. That guideline is still on the Liberal government's website, meaning the Prime Minister has kept it in place. Eight months went by after this ruling, which affects 800 acres and over $1 billion of private land, and the Prime Minister , who is the head of the government that is the defendant in the case, said absolutely nothing.”
“We do not need an announcement, a symbolic signing ceremony or any other illusions. We need him to get out of the way, get rid of the industrial carbon tax, approve the 500 projects waiting, grant a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and legalize shipping oil off the West Coast. We need him to let builders build, workers work and investors invest. To do that, though, we also need to protect private property, which is the foundation of any economic civilization. Last August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Cowichan case that aboriginal title had prior and senior status over private property rights, what is called “fee simple.” Fee simple is the legal term for the title one has to own their home. This is an unprecedented ruling, and it changes everything. We have to acknowledge how this ruling came to pass.”
“He needs to get out of the way by legalizing oil and gas shipping off the West Coast. He needs to get out of the way by allowing a pipeline. That is the way to start letting builders build, investors invest and businesses create. [ English ] Before starting, I just want to address that the Liberal Prime Minister is again spreading illusions. CBC ran a big headline that he is going to introduce a new law to get projects built. Where have we heard that before? Eleven months ago, the House gave him unprecedented legal powers under Bill C-5 to approve projects quickly. He said these powers would allow him to build at unimaginable speeds. Eleven months later, he has not used them once to approve a single solitary project. There are 500 of them waiting for his approval. There is only one thing in the way, and that is the Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, before starting my speech, I just want to mention the media reports saying that the Liberal Prime Minister is once again promising a new law to speed up projects, a year after he promised the very same thing. It is déjà vu all over again. We passed Bill C‑5 in five days almost a year ago. The Prime Minister said he was going to build at speeds not seen in generations. A year later, he has not used his powers once to approve a single new project in Canada. Now, he is repeating the same promise. Five hundred projects are waiting for federal approval. The only thing he needs to do for them to move ahead is to get out of the way. The Prime Minister needs to get out of the way by getting rid of the carbon tax. He needs to get out of the way by granting permits.”
“Mr. Speaker, they have doubled the deficit, driving up inflation, and now they have increased gas prices with increased taxes at the pumps and a weaker dollar than ever. To top it all off, the Prime Minister , as we have been saying, is just another Liberal, but at least Justin Trudeau was able to stand up on his feet and answer questions. Will he stand in his place today and answer, will he get rid of his industrial carbon tax so we can build a pipeline and get rid of the gas taxes so Canadians can fill their tanks and fill their grocery carts?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said he is not even sure he ever wants to see a new pipeline to the Pacific. Now he is insisting on an industrial carbon tax that will not only raise housing and food costs by raising the price of everything that goes into making them but will also make it impossible for energy companies to produce enough oil to put in a future pipeline. Canadians want a pipeline without a carbon tax. Why does he insist on giving them a carbon tax without a pipeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, they cannot even trust the Prime Minister to stand up and answer questions. In fact, after a year of being Prime Minister , promising to build at unprecedented speeds, he was asked last week if he even supports ever building a pipeline to the Pacific, and his response was, “So all of that lines up to it’s more likely than not, which means more probable than possible. But none of that says it’s certain. Still a lot of work to be done.” It is like a riddle from Dr. Seuss. How much will the cost of green eggs and ham be next year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Strait of Hormuz might explain why global oil prices are $100 a barrel, but they were $100 a barrel back in 2014, and at that time, when Conservatives were in power, gas prices were 50¢ a litre cheaper. South of the border, they have the same global oil price of $100 a barrel, yet their gas prices are 15% cheaper. The difference is explained by high Liberal taxes, including the newly renamed carbon tax; the inflationary spending; and the weak dollar the Prime Minister has caused through his incompetent economic policies. Will he at least have the courage to stand up and announce that he will get rid of all the taxes for all the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is just another illusion. The Prime Minister brings more costs, more debt and more taxes. Let us look at gas, for example. The Prime Minister likes to blame the $1.85-a-litre cost at the pumps on the fact that we have $100 global oil prices, but in 2014, we also had $100 global oil prices and the price at the pump was $1.38, almost 50¢ cheaper, even though the world price was exactly the same. The difference is explained by the Liberal Prime Minister's inflationary debt and newly renamed carbon taxes on top of a weak dollar. Will the Prime Minister at least take all Liberal taxes off gas for the rest of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, increases in the price of a barrel of oil are partly responsible for the higher prices at the pump. In 2014, the price of a barrel of oil was exactly the same, at $100. However, gas prices were 50¢ cheaper. Also, U.S. gas prices are 15% lower than ours. There is something that this Prime Minister is doing that explains the difference: taxes, inflationary deficits and a very weak dollar. Will he have the courage to stand up in the House of Commons and announce today that he will get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister . He likes to blame the $1.85-a-litre price of gas on the fact that the oil is $100 a barrel. Here are the facts: In 2014, the same barrel of oil cost $100, but the price at the pump was $1.38 per litre. That is nearly 50¢ less than today. This is due to taxes, inflationary deficits that drive up prices, and anti-development policies that reduce the value of our dollar. Will he get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer on property rights is all an illusion. The Liberal government directed its lawyers not to defend property rights. Litigation directive number 14 said that lawyers are not to make the case that fee simple property ownership takes precedence over all other claims. That directive is still on the government website, meaning that in all the litigation that is coming up on property ownership, the Prime Minister is directing his lawyers not to do their jobs and not to defend British Columbia homeowners. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to spread the illusion that he is protecting property rights, but the reality is quite the contrary. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend property rights in the Cowichan case, with litigation directive number 14, which said that in fact those titles did not take priority. Now the dispute is going to an appeal, and the Prime Minister has kept that litigation order in place. In other words, he is directing his lawyers not to defend the property rights of British Columbians. Why is it that the Prime Minister refuses to defend homeowners?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is factually wrong. There are roughly 700 IRGC members here in Canada, according to a report by Global News, and the government claims to have expelled only one, one out of 700. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has no idea who has left the country, because the Liberals still do not track departures. This is despite the fact that the Liberal government allowed millions of international students to come in, many on a fraudulent basis and many not planning to leave at all. Now we know that the existing Liberal minister has no plan to get them out, despite meeting with the Prime Minister every week. Will he fire her for this immigration incompetence, or does he approve of it?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, the Prime Minister brings more costs, more debt and more chaos to immigration. Recently, his Liberal immigration minister admitted that her department granted a permit to enter the country to an IRGC terrorist. The Auditor General also confirms that the Liberal government has no way of confirming that people who are here illegally ever actually leave. There is no exit tracking whatsoever. The Prime Minister appointed the Liberal immigration minister , has kept her in place for a year and meets with her weekly. Is it because she is incompetent, or is her incompetence actually his incompetence, and when will he fire her?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to her testimony, this is the same Liberal minister who meets with the Prime Minister to chat every week. Her department gave an entry permit to an Iranian terrorist. A brief Google search would have shown that he does not belong here in Canada. The Auditor General confirmed that the Liberals do not screen non-citizens, allowing widespread fraud in the student system. Will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent minister, or is this incompetence on the Prime Minister himself?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, this Prime Minister is bringing more costs, more debt, more taxes, and more chaos to immigration. He is just another Liberal. Yesterday, his Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship admitted that this Liberal government cannot even confirm that people who were here as temporary students left the country once their permits expired. She admits that the Liberal government has no plan to deport people who are here illegally. Does the Prime Minister agree with keeping people who are here illegally, or is he going to fire his minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is now $60 billion of annual interest, money for bankers and bondholders, not doctors and nurses, and $3,400 from every family will go to pay interest on the federal debt this year. That number will go up by 50% over the next five years. This is the fastest-growing item on the government's budget right now: interest on the debt. It will enrich the bankers and the bondholders at the expense of hard-working people and threaten the future of our kids. That is why we need to restore fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and controlled spending.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to be king of the economy. He is holding on to all kinds of regulations that are hurting businesses. Businesses that are getting ahead are being slapped down with hefty taxes, except for a small group personally chosen by the Prime Minister. The member is absolutely right: Under the law, these powers all belong to the Prime Minister. That is no exaggeration. These special businesses will be able to sidestep all the rules and receive subsidies and gifts from the fund, which opens the door to corruption and leaves millions of small businesses out in the cold. Why not open up the free market so that all businesses can prosper?”
“I do not understand why they need the government to force them to take on a $25-billion liability on the credit card for the Liberal government to dole out, in a political slush fund, to those politically powerful corporations.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no prosperity and growth to participate in. This economy has not grown in a decade. In fact, Canada has had the worst economic performance of all G7 countries. Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, nothing has changed. There has been no regulatory reform and no tax reform, and not a single antidevelopment law has been eliminated. Other than to rename the carbon tax as the clean fuel standard, there has been no serious tax reform. Finally, and I guess it is the only difference, the deficit is twice the size now of what it was under Justin Trudeau. Now, as for participating in growing the Canadian economy, people have the freedom right now to buy into a Canadian stock index if they want to do that.”
“They will not be invited to the investment summit. It will just be for large multinational corporations that have political power. Small businesses that serve customers will lose. Multinationals that serve politicians in power will win.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member is quite right. For six consecutive quarters, there have been more businesses that have closed than opened in Canada. A recent survey showed there are twice as many Canadian businesses that opened in 2024 outside of Canada than inside of Canada. For the elbows-up crowd in the room, Canadians are now opening more businesses in the United States than they are opening in Canada. In the last decade, $1 trillion of net investment has flowed out of our country. A majority of Canadian pension funds are, according to Statistics Canada, invested abroad and not here at home, a problem that has worsened since the Prime Minister took office. Now, the question was very particular: Would the million small businesses across this country benefit? Of course not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his compliment about the expression I used in French, “patente à gosses”. Every day, I try to learn a little more of the language of Molière. A little poetry can sometimes be a delight. The difference is that Norway's sovereign wealth fund contains funds. It is simple. We do not have any funds here. The people of Norway have surpluses because they take revenue from the oil industry, which makes up 25% of their economy, and they put that revenue in a fund and invest it. Here in Canada, we do not have surpluses. We have deficits year after year. The government is just going to put this investment on the credit card. It is taking big risks with money that belongs to future generations by charging this to the credit card.”
“He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation. He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade. How is it that he has been so wrong for so long?”
“Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. The member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade. He speaks, and the reality— An hon. member: As you have done for 22 years. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right. On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong. The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground. He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline, which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it. He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID.”
“We want this to be a country that restores the promise to the people that anyone who works hard can enjoy an affordable home, a safe street, good food on the table and realize their dreams. We want a country where our people get ahead by having the best product and the best work, not by having the most political influence. We do not want a country of bureaucrats and busybodies, of gatekeepers and grifters, of tax collectors and toll masters. We want a country of artists and adventurers, entrepreneurs and explorers, workers and warriors, pioneers and patriots. That is the country we seek to build. Now, let us get to building.”
“Let businesses compete for customers, not political favour. Let entrepreneurs win with the best product, not the best lobbyists. Let workers earn a powerful paycheque, not wait for government handouts. Let Canadians build sovereign wealth, not borrow sovereign debt. This is the choice: state-controlled crony capitalism, where political influence becomes the most valuable commodity, or a free market where work, savings, risk-taking and service create prosperity for everyone. The options are a top-down, state-controlled, crony capitalist system or a bottom-up, merit-based, free enterprise system. A political aristocracy or an economic meritocracy is the choice.”
“The answer is not to weigh the economy down with even more government agencies on top of the countless number that already existed a year ago, and the 13 new ones that the Prime Minister has since created. We need to unblock and unlock the potential of our resources and our people. The answer is more economic freedom, such as the freedom to build, to produce, to hire, to invest and to compete. We must replace an economy of carve-outs, handouts and bailouts for insiders with free choice, opportunity and affordability. If a project is safe, lawful and in the national interest, just approve it. If a company can build without taxpayers' money, let it build now. If workers can build bigger paycheques by producing energy, minerals, food, homes, steel, aluminum, copper and more, we need to get the government out of the way and let them do it.”
“Who was tapped to administer that fund? It was Brookfield. That was barely two years ago, and here we go again. There is another summit, another fund, another transition office and another name for the same old Liberal idea. There is an illusion of change, but the reality is that it is more of the same. Desjardins wrote that the proposed fund draws strong parallels to the Infrastructure Bank. The Montreal Economic Institute called it “essentially the Canadian Infrastructure Bank under a different name.” It is the same poison with a new label, more costs, more corruption, more debt, more taxes and more on the credit card. The Liberal Prime Minister is just another Liberal. We have seen how we can build wealth when we unlock the power of the free enterprise system.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, when all levels of government were included, two out of every three dollars used for projects funded by the bank came from the taxpayer, not from businesses. Taxpayers lost and insiders won. (1025) The bank spent a quarter of a billion dollars on operations. The CEO makes $600,000 a year. It paid out $8 million in bonuses in one year. That is why a parliamentary committee studied it thoroughly and recommended it be eliminated. Now, instead of doing that, the Liberals are augmenting it with yet another slush fund. Then, in September of 2024, the then Liberal finance minister Chrystia Freeland pledged to create a Canada growth fund, seeded with taxpayers' dollars, to try to bring back the $1.2 trillion of pension funds that the Liberal government had driven abroad.”
“I just mentioned that there is going to be a big summit where a whole series of multinationals and billionaires will come and feast on this $25 billion. This is not a new idea. In 2016, the Liberal government hosted another international summit of investors at a Shangri‑La hotel to unveil the Infrastructure Bank, a $45‑billion pot of gold that went to subsidizing the investments of insiders. Here we are, 10 years later, and a Liberal government is holding the same kind of summit to allow the same elites to feast on the same debt. Since the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. For its first seven years, its investment income failed to cover even its operating costs.”
“That is the difference between the real economy and the protected economy. In the real economy, inflation crushes families. It raises grocery bills. It raises rent and mortgage payments. It costs people more for gas, heat and electricity. It shuts young people out of home ownership and starting families. In a political economy, inflation can be used as a revenue tool for elites and schemers. The government creates the rule. The rule creates the market. The insider sees the rule coming. The insider invests, and the consumer pays the politically connected profit. Everyone else is told that this is progress. Canadians will pay the price through higher inflation at the grocery store, taxes on their paycheques and debt interest for future generations. We have seen this movie before.”
“Well, the CEO of Brookfield confirmed on May 20 of last year that Brookfield profits off of inflation, saying, “many of our things are regulated, rate-based or contractual in nature, and inflation is actually a positive to the numbers, so as inflation comes in, it actually helps the revenue streams of those businesses”. The Prime Minister said a little over a year ago that he had successfully lobbied for a more expensive form of so-called sustainable aviation fuel right before Brookfield, his company, invested a billion dollars in that same fuel, forcing Canadian passengers to pay higher airline fees for this more pricey fuel, which his company then profited from. This is not business; this is political manipulation. It raises the cost for everyone, especially those who do not have political power.”
“If a project is good enough to receive regulatory support, why not just approve it in the first place? Why should a company have to win over a politician to get something built? Why should a project have to give up a piece of its ownership to the state in order to escape the prison of heavy regulations? This is the model the Liberal Prime Minister believes in, and that is because it is the model that enriched him in the first place, not by doing business in the marketplace, but by using political power to get favours for his company. We remember that the Prime Minister pushed for heat pump subsidies. Well, Brookfield sells heat pumps. We remember that he pushed for money-printing inflation.”
“This is state-controlled crony capitalism, a system where government concentrates money in fewer hands based on power, and where most businesses and citizens never have the political clout needed to get a meeting, win a carve-out, secure a subsidy or escape that regulatory prison. Make no mistake, regulatory prison is what it is. If someone wants to build a mine or a pipeline, they must wait. If they want to build a home, they must wait. If they want to build a port, a road, a transmission line, a factory, a terminal, a refinery or a railway, they must wait, fill out the forms, hire consultants, lobby a minister, please the regulator and win some political influence. Maybe they will then have a chance. After years of delay, they might get government support, as the Prime Minister likes to call it.”
“As I said, it operates by coercion, and in relationships of coercion, the strongest always win and the weakest always get crushed. The Prime Minister quoted Thucydides in his Davos speech, saying that the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must. The government taxes, regulates and blocks the productive economy, then uses our own money to create programs that promise to fix the damage it caused. This is not Robin Hood. It is the sheriff of Nottingham. It takes from the workers, builders, taxpayers and investors, running their money through bureaucracy, consultants, lobbyists and insiders, and lets a few drops trickle back down to the people who paid for it in the first place.”
“If someone wants an apple and has an orange, and I want an orange and have an apple, and we trade, we still have an apple and an orange between us, but we are both richer because each of us has something worth more to us than what we had before; thus the double “thank you” when we trade. By contrast, a state-controlled economy is based entirely on force. Everything the government does, it does by force because taxation is mandatory and not voluntary. That is why no one ever writes “thank you” on their tax form. The transaction was imposed. Even if it was a good transaction, it was not a free one. Free exchange allows work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest. It is free people making free choices and building a free country. (1020) By contrast, a government-controlled economy works differently.”
“We sell a product only if someone wants to buy it. We hire a worker only if the worker freely chooses the job and the employer values the work. We attract investment only if we can prove that we can create more value tomorrow than we will consume today. That is the magic of the free market. People cannot get ahead without making someone else better off. We know that because they would not engage in the voluntary transaction if it did not make them better off. That is why, in a free market, when one buys something and says “thank you” to the vendor, the vendor often does not say “you are welcome”. They say “thank you” back. This is because the seller values the money more than what they sold and the buyer values the product more than what they paid.”
“The million or so small businesses without lobbyists will still be stuck in that regulatory prison, forced to pay taxes to subsidize their larger, more politically powerful competitors. It is the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules. The small elite turns power into wealth, wealth back into more power and then more power back into more wealth. The cycle continues until they have it all. They get richer, making everyone else poorer. In a political economy, the elite profit not by having the best product, but by having the best lobbyists. It is not how much value they create for customers. It is how much influence they have over ministers, regulators, agencies and insiders. The most important commodities in the political economy are influence and power. In a market economy, people get ahead by serving the people.”
“He has something else: debt. He wants to put $25 billion more on our national credit card to invest in politically connected companies. Who will get the money? It is those with the political power. The Liberal Prime Minister plans to hold yet another summit, this time with multinational corporations and billionaires, to offer them access to government money and allow them to circumvent the brutal red tape and taxes he imposes on all other businesses. He will demand that these businesses, which will ultimately get permits to go ahead and get around the restrictive red tape and taxes, will give the government an ownership stake. It is almost like charging a ransom for letting them out of the regulatory prison he has created.”