As I mentioned a few weeks ago in this space, I still consider myself a ‘conservative’ — although I am not a member of any party, provincially or federally, and have had no involvement in the current Conservative Party of Canada race beyond writing about it (a lot).

That said, there are a couple of candidates I’d like to see do well. The first is Maxime Bernier.

I met Max in Edmonton in 2007, before my election to Parliament. I’ve always liked him. In many ways, his libertarian values parallel my own. I know he also struggled to reconcile his minimalist government philosophy with serving a government preoccupied with law-and-order, surveillance and big-spending budgets.

Max is charming, an impeccable dresser and interesting to talk to one-on-one. He has interests outside of politics. Sadly, to many Canadians (and to those most hostile to Conservatives), Max will always be remembered as the doofus who left confidential papers in his mob-connected girlfriend’s residence. He was bounced from cabinet (deservedly) and languished on the backbench, until a combination of fence-mending and a dearth of Conservative MPs from Quebec following the 2011 election put him back in the ‘show’.

He has matured since, having paid the price for his former carelessness. Most conservatives believe in redemption; most political observers like a good comeback story.

I hope that Max does well in the leadership because I think this country needs to have a serious debate about some of the economic policies we’ve been pursuing blindly for a very long time. Canadians generally, and Conservatives specifically, need to assess and evaluate supply management and Canadian industrial policy.

There are good arguments in favour of supply-managed agriculture — quality control, reduction of waste. There are good economic arguments against it. Sadly, it seems as if politicians in this country are not even permitted to debate supply management. All of the major parties (and even the minor ones) recognize the political sensitivity of the subject (especially in Quebec) and accept supply management as a given — an immovable object.

But why should that be? Conservatives — especially conservatives — should feel free to talk about this like adults. We’re supposed to be the ones who believe in the constructive power of markets, in the laws of supply and demand. We should be the ones having an open, intelligent debate about whether the benefits of having government boards set quotas and limit production outweigh the economic costs.

Canadians may not be ready for this debate — but they need to at least listen to the arguments. Maybe supply management and corporate bailouts will survive being put under the microscope. Their defenders shouldn’t be allowed to win the point by default. Canadians may not be ready for this debate — but they need to at least listen to the arguments. Maybe supply management and corporate bailouts will survive being put under the microscope. Their defenders shouldn’t be allowed to win the point by default.

Canada’s industrial policy, meanwhile, has always been a potpourri of clashing policy objectives. The public’s interest in supporting private enterprise is dubious at best. Relocating tax dollars from successful economic sectors to prop up failing industrial sectors flies in the face of what market economists teach.

Industry Canada has dispersed over $22 billion over the last half-century to prop up everything from hot dog vendors and gas bars to pizzerias and green tech firms — and of course, the auto sector and Bombardier. Worse, a perusal of Industry Canada’s list of grant recipients confirms numerous applicants receiving more than one grant, suggesting that certain industries become dependent on subsidies over time. In Canadian politics there’s a tendency to regard some corporate players as ‘too big to fail’ — and there is always intense political pressure to bail out failed enterprises in the regions and electoral districts where those companies are located.

That’s all going to change, Bernier tells us. No more corporate welfare. No more overtaxing efficient enterprises to subsidize the losers.

Well, we’ll see. It is a stimulating concept. But he has to recognize that certain regions of the country would wither without regional diversification funds and sectoral subsidies. There is a political cost to be paid for allowing that to happen.

But this is a debate we must have — and Max is just the guy to get it started. Because we can’t carry on doing what we’ve been doing indefinitely.

The federal debt continues to grow. The Harper government ran huge deficits until the very end of its mandate — and when it did table a balanced budget, it lost the election. The Trudeau government promised big deficits — and then broke that promise by delivering even bigger ones.

Canada needs, at the very least, a leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who wants to lead a national discussion on the appropriate role of government in the economy, the size and cost of government and the perils of undisciplined spending. Canadians may not be ready for it — but they need to at least listen to the arguments. Maybe supply management and corporate bailouts will survive being put under the microscope. Their defenders shouldn’t be allowed to win the point by default.

And there’s little risk to the CPC in choosing an ideological fiscal hawk and libertarian to lead the Official Opposition. That, after all, is really all that’s on the table at this point.

The last public opinion poll I saw put the Trudeau Liberals at 44 per cent, despite a so-so record in government. Canadians are reluctant to turf a majority government after only one term. History and polling leads me to believe the government is unlikely to change hands in 2019 — and whoever leads the CPC to electoral defeat is unlikely to lead Conservatives thereafter.

I hope Max Bernier does well in the race — well enough to lead this country into a discussion on individual liberty, market economies and a reduced role for government that we sorely need. The CPC is not choosing a prime minister this month. But they can choose a debate on first principles — and do the nation a service in the meantime.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.