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 12 of 20.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gets angry and runs out the door rather than answering questions about the cost of $15 billion out the door, or $1,000 for every tax-paying family, to a company that is shipping jobs out of the country. Why is he sending our dollars away and our jobs away while he runs away?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberals love to give corporate bailouts and handouts to companies that ship jobs out of our country. Now, we learn that the Liberal government has pledged $15 billion or $1,000 for every tax-paying family in Canada, people who cannot afford food, to Stellantis. Investment is fleeing this country almost as fast as the Prime Minister is running out the back door of Parliament right now. Why will he not—”
“Mr. Speaker, well, as long as the CEO is happy with the $400-million gift he got from the Prime Minister, that is all matters to the Liberals. He did not give the workers a bridge to the future. He gave them a bridge to the unemployment lines, 1,000 of them. One-third of the workers at Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie have now lost their jobs after the Prime Minister paid to have those jobs shipped abroad. How is it that he could have been so irresponsible with the money of hard-working Canadians that he would pay a corporate CEO $400 million to send 1,000 jobs south?”
“Mr. Speaker, we voted against the Prime Minister's doubling Justin Trudeau's deficit, which will drive up groceries even more. What is he spending the money on? It is on corporate bailouts for companies that ship jobs out of Canada. The Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win and have a deal by July 21. However, with still no win, still no deal and still no elbows, 1,000 workers at Algoma Steel are now losing their jobs. We now learn that the Prime Minister gave $400 million to the corporate executives of that company without any job guarantees. How is it that the Prime Minister could have been so incompetent as to saddle Canadians who cannot afford to pay their bills with a $400-million bailout bill, without any guarantee of jobs staying in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, as Canadians walk down the grocery aisle watching the prices rise before their eyes, they should know that the Prime Minister , who stashes his cash in a tax haven, says that they have never had it so good, the Canadian people, who have seen their grocery bills literally double under the Liberal government, from $8,300 to $16,800, in a decade. Tomorrow we will find out in the “Canada Food Price Report” how much groceries will cost an average family next year. Given that the Prime Minister has promised to be judged on the price of groceries, will he tell Canadian families how much they will have to pay to survive?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to “Canada's Food Price Report”, when the Liberals took office the cost of a basket of groceries was $8,300. Now it is $16,800, which is double. Liberal inflationary deficits, and taxes on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors, have all exploded the cost of food. Tomorrow that same report will be released, projecting the cost for next year. Given the Prime Minister's promise to be judged by the prices at the grocery store, how much will Canadians have to spend on groceries to survive next year?”
“Mr. Speaker, there, he said it, he is happy with the cost of groceries. According to “Canada's Food Price Report”, when the Liberal government came to power, it cost an average family $8,300 a year for groceries. Now it costs $16,800. It has doubled because of taxes and inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of everything. The Prime Minister promised to be judged on grocery prices. According to that report, which comes out tomorrow, how much will it cost to eat in 2026?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Heritage is fed up, but so are Canadians. They are fed up with paying $16,800 a year for groceries. They are fed up with paying 51% more for groceries. They are fed up with paying 30% more for a rib-eye steak. They are fed up with paying 23% more for a whole chicken. How many people will be forced to go to the food bank before the Prime Minister gets fed up too?”
“Mr. Speaker, the industrial carbon tax is not just a tax on homes; it is a tax on food. When we tax the steel that goes into farm equipment and the fertilizer that is necessary to grow food, when we tax the food processor, we tax the food. It is no wonder that since the Prime Minister took office, food prices have increased roughly 40% faster in Canada than they have in the United States. Canadians deserve affordable, nutritious, delicious food on their plates. Will the Prime Minister stand up now and agree to get rid of the industrial carbon tax so that Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for us to vote against affordable housing because there is no affordable housing after 10 years of a Liberal government. One idea, one positive idea, that we could all agree on is to reduce the cost of the steel, the concrete, the cement and the glass that goes into building homes. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has an industrial carbon tax whose stated purpose is to raise the cost of all of those things. Why will they not accept this positive idea to take taxes off of homebuilding so that our youth can finally have homes, jobs and hope like they deserve?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was 200,000 homes and the average cost of buying one was $450,000. The average rent for a one-bedroom was $900. The government came along and built bureaucracy to block homes and printed money to inflate their costs. They allowed mass immigration that was out of control, which ballooned demand and left us with the worst and most expensive housing anywhere in the G7. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer blew the lid off their latest promises, showing that they will build almost none of the homes that they promised in the last election. Why will the Prime Minister not stand in the House and take account for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for pointing out that we have voted against every single program that doubled housing costs in Canada. The Prime Minister created the biggest housing crisis in the G7 when he was the Bank of England governor. He has now come here to adopt the same Trudeau-era policies of building bureaucracies rather than building homes. He promised that this was all going to change and that the latest bureaucracy would change everything, but today the Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that he will only build 2% of what he promised. Why does the Prime Minister block homes and break promises?”
“Mr. Speaker, that minister was literally the mayor of the city that became the most expensive housing market in all of North America, more expensive than New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. He now brags that not only will they build only about 2% of the homes that they promised during the election, but they are spending $13 billion to do it. Failing is bad. Failing expensively is even worse. Rather than having the costly mayor stand up and answer for him, will the Prime Minister have the courage to answer for himself? Where are the homes he promised?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us speak about indicators then. I am going to quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Build Canada Homes [the Prime Minister's program] is presented as part of the Government’s efforts to double the pace of housing construction over the next decade. That said, the Government has not yet laid out an overall plan to achieve this goal. We anticipate that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will likely be modest and estimate that the program will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions.... This is not the 100% increase the Prime Minister promised. Was this just another bait and switch?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very sad the Prime Minister does not want to debate how we get homes for our youth. Our young people deserve homes, jobs and hope. He was feeling very cocky a few minutes ago until he worried I might present him with the facts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed today that his new housing bureaucracy will build only 5,000 homes per year, which is barely 1% of the 500,000 homes he promised during the election. Construction is falling off the cliff. Why will the Prime Minister not stand in the House and debate it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only thing that member built when he was the governor of the Bank of England was the housing crisis in that country. Then he built a tax haven in the Caribbean so he would not have to pay the same taxes he imposes on the Canadian people. Our youth need homes, jobs and hope. The Prime Minister offers them only broken promises and more sacrifices. He even held a photo op in front of a house that was dismantled after he left it. Here we have a Prime Minister whose houses disappear after he announces them and whose promises disappear after he makes them.”
“Mr. Speaker, he has broken his promise to get big projects built, and now we learn that he has broken his promise to get houses built. He promised, during the election, that he would double home building to 500,000 units per year. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that his brand new bureaucracy will build only 5,000 homes per year, 99% fewer than he promised. After Conservatives built well over 200,000 homes at half the cost of today, why will the Prime Minister not listen to us and stop building bureaucracy so that we can start building homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, transcripts are great things. The Prime Minister just renamed Justin Trudeau's immigration minister to cabinet: the guy who destroyed our immigration system and helped double the housing costs in this country. The minister has now had something to say about the Prime Minister's failure to consult on pipelines. He said that the consultation should have started yesterday, and it cannot be done on a desktop, making reference to his fellow minister 's promise that they would do consultations by Zoom. Why is it that the Prime Minister did not start consulting first nations eight months ago? Is it because he does not care what they have to say, or is it because he just does not want the pipeline to get built?”
“Mr. Speaker, we learned today that eight months after the Prime Minister was elected, promising to build nation-building projects at speeds not seen in generations, he has not even begun consulting with first nations people about his promised pipeline to the Pacific. Now the Assembly of First Nations has condemned his plan because he has not done any consulting with them. Today, he will address the assembly. Will he for once say one thing, no matter the group he is speaking to, and be clear that he wants the pipeline to get built and that he will get the consultations done to make it happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question was about the statement made by his new minister , who said he was fed up with the debate on the decline of the French language. The Prime Minister's response shows that we should all be concerned about the decline of the French language. Of all the Liberal members, why did he choose to appoint someone who is fed up with defending the French language and Quebec culture?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just appointed another Trudeau-era minister who destroyed our immigration system and helped drive up the cost of living. This same minister, who is responsible for heritage, just said this morning that he is fed up with the debate on the decline of the French language. The Conservatives are not fed up. We will defend the French language. Of all the Liberal members the Prime Minister could have appointed, why did he appoint someone who is fed up with defending the French language and Quebec culture?”
“We want to make sure that $400 million results in job guarantees, because that is what taxpayers paid for. However, to get any of that, we need a debate on the floor of the House of Commons to put forward the positive ideas, protect paycheques and make sure that the vital industry of steel is strong here in this country. That is what we are fighting for. It is for the Canadian people who work hard to be able to have good jobs and buy food and affordable homes in safe neighbourhoods and a nation that puts Canada first.”
“We want to know, in an emergency debate, why the Prime Minister gave $400 million in tax dollars, money that came from hard-working people who are struggling to pay for their groceries and their mortgages, without getting job guarantees. It rips off both taxpayers and workers. It is another bait and switch by the Prime Minister. On behalf of all those families, we want the answers to those questions. We want an end to the Prime Minister 's Liberal industrial carbon tax on steel production, which makes it even more difficult for Canadian steelmakers to compete with their American counterparts. Trump's tariffs plus the Liberal taxes are driving jobs south of this country. That is why we, as Conservatives, are fighting back. We want to get a fair deal, without tariffs, with the Americans. We want an end to the industrial carbon tax.”
“Fathers had conversations with their children, saying they will not be able to register for soccer or hockey for the next season. Mothers and fathers tossed and turned in their beds, wondering what their future looked like and whether they would have to move. This is after the Prime Minister looked them in the eyes and promised that he would protect their jobs. He said he would negotiate a win with President Trump to end the tariffs and there would be a deal by July 21. That was last summer. He missed his self-imposed deadline. He said he would be “elbows up”, and now he says, “Who cares?” Those families care. I want them to know that we Conservatives care about them. We want to fight for their jobs every day and in every way.”
“Mr. Speaker, steelworkers are the backbone of our nation, and the products they make are the bones of our economy. We cannot have a modern economy without steel, and Canada's steel sector has been under attack from American tariffs and the Canadian government's taxes. Steelworkers go to work every day, work in difficult conditions and bring home a paycheque for their families to raise their kids in the hopes that their children will have the same opportunity that they had. The member for Edmonton Griesbach could tell us all about that. His father worked at the Algoma plant in Sault Ste. Marie for 30 years, so for him, it was personal when he learned that one-third of those incredible workers would be losing their jobs. A thousand families sat around dinner tables last night, wondering how they would pay their mortgages.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not just break his promises on food. He also did on housing. He said he would double homebuilding, but, today, a report out from the Missing Middle Initiative shows that housing starts are down 34% across 34 Ontario municipalities, and condo starts are down 51%. However, the Prime Minister is going ahead with a Liberal industrial carbon tax on the steel, aluminum, glass and other inputs required to build homes. It is a tax on homes, all while he hides his millions of dollars in a Bermuda tax haven. Why does the Prime Minister hide his money abroad while taxing homes here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the support those Canadians want and need is a paycheque. They want to be able to afford food, and they should be able to. In a country with this much farmland and this much wealth, our people should be able to eat. However, according to the latest report by Feed Ontario, there has been a 165% increase in food bank use in Ontario alone since the Prime Minister joined the government, yet he wants to go ahead with an industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, food processors and fertilizer, which will drive up the cost of food. Why does the Prime Minister get fat on his tax havens while he taxes people's food?”
“Mr. Speaker, more promises and more Liberal thoughts will not put food on the tables of those out-of-work steelworkers. They are not alone. The Liberal food cost crisis is growing, according to today's Feed Ontario report, which reveals that food bank use is up 13% in one year and 165% since the current Prime Minister became the economic adviser to the Liberal government. There have been 8.7 million visits in one year to Ontario food banks while the Prime Minister hikes carbon taxes on food production. Why is he driving more people into hunger with higher taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, today Algoma announced it is laying off 1,000 steelworkers, nearly a third of its workforce, in the Soo. Our thoughts are with them. The Prime Minister looked them in the eye and promised he would protect their jobs, negotiate a win and have a deal by July 21, but it was a bait and switch that is costing people their livelihoods. On top of that, the Liberals are hammering the steel mill with a higher industrial carbon tax. Is it not bad enough that the Prime Minister broke his promise on trade? Why is he going ahead with an industrial carbon tax that will kill even more steel jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, we vote against measures that feed bureaucracy rather than children and families. Since the school food program was created, the number of young children who need to use food banks has doubled, and 90% of children receive nothing from this program, even if we believe the government's own figures. Every time the government spends more, it costs people more in food inflation, on top of the taxes on food. Why is the government forcing Canadians to pay more for bureaucracy instead of paying for food?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not have to go hungry, but today's report from the Observatoire québécois des inégalités says that food insecurity has increased by 82% in Quebec and that food bank visits have increased by 116%. The percentage of workers living with food insecurity has doubled to 20%. That means that 1.7 million Quebeckers are going hungry. Why is this Liberal government forcing Quebeckers to pay more in taxes and inflation to feed the bureaucracy instead of feeding their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member accidentally told the truth. She did not say that it moves forward on a pipeline. She said it moves forward on an industrial carbon tax, which will increase the cost of everything it takes to build a home, so it is a tax on homes, and of everything it takes to grow food, so it is a tax on food. It is a tax that drives production out, paycheques down and the cost of living up. Meanwhile, the agreement does not move forward with a pipeline. We as Conservatives believe in clearing the way to get pipelines built. In other words, we would build a pipeline without a carbon tax. They would build a carbon tax without a pipeline.”
“Mr. Speaker, what they will do is stand in the way. We know that the only thing stopping a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific is the Prime Minister . Let us unpack the legality of it. The Constitution, paragraph 92(10)(a), gives the federal government exclusive approval power for a pipeline. Bill C-5 , a bill the Prime Minister pushed through the House of Commons, and we even supported him, gives him the power to approve it. We need the Prime Minister to do only one thing for this pipeline to happen: get out of the way. Will he do it?”
“Mr. Speaker, they will not tell us when a pipeline will be under construction. Let us just unpack the Prime Minister 's illusion. He is telling the “keep it in the ground” caucus members of the Liberal Party that they just need to be quiet because there will not be a pipeline anyway. What he will do is delay it for several years until after a prospective election, during which he can dangle a possible pipeline in front of the people, but after which he can hand veto power that is not in the Constitution over to the NDP B.C. premier, who will block the thing from ever happening. Is it not true that this is not a pipeline but a pipe dream?”
“Mr. Speaker, they do not know the year that construction will begin, and they do not know the decade that construction will begin. The environment minister could not even bring herself to utter the word “pipeline” in her answer to the question. Today's deal allows a proposal for a pipeline to go to an office in seven months. It will then be studied for two years, after which the Prime Minister will give a pipeline veto to the NDP B.C. premier, who has already said he is against it. Is this pipeline not going to be built in the year “never”?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have gone from elbows up to “Who cares?” under the Prime Minister . Do members remember when he said he would negotiate a win and would get a deal by July 21? There is still no win and still no deal. He has made concession after concession. He backed down on countertariffs, on the digital services tax and on the legal action against softwood lumber, and he got nothing in return. He got one thing. Brookfield, his company, got $80 billion in contracts hand-signed by the President just 20 days after the two met. Is that what he meant when he said he would negotiate a win with Trump?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we are finding out that if one is not there, one does not care. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said “who cares” that Canadian workers are losing their jobs, because he broke his promise to get a deal. We care. Why does he not show up and prove he does too?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed he did not have the power to approve a pipeline. Well, too bad for him; the Constitution is public. Paragraph 92(10)(a) says it is exclusively a federal responsibility. He happens to be the Prime Minister, and he asked us to pass emergency legal powers in Bill C-5 to give him the personal authority to overturn any regulation in order to get the project done. In other words, the government has the exclusive power; the Prime Minister has the exclusive legal authority. Will he match that authority with responsibility and approve a pipeline to the Pacific today?”
“Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Prime Minister will wave around in the air a worthless piece of paper that he says the Premier of B.C. can veto anytime he wants. Here is the political problem he has: Canadians want a pipeline. They know it is the best way to get our resources to market, going around the United States of America, but his “keep it in the ground” caucus is standing in the way. Why does the Prime Minister not stand up to the U.S.A. and stand up for Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, do we want the good news, or the bad news? Well, in these times I guess we will have to start with the good news; it is all we have. The good news is that David Eby, the Premier of B.C., has absolutely no constitutional authority to block a pipeline. The bad news is that the Prime Minister does. Under paragraph 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act, works between provinces are exclusively the federal government's responsibility. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind the powerless premier, get out of the way and approve a pipeline to the Pacific today?”
“Mr. Speaker, “Who cares?” The Prime Minister promised to negotiate a victory before July 21. Since then, there has been no deal, no victory. The Americans have doubled tariffs, yet the Prime Minister made concessions by eliminating countertariffs, scrapping the digital services tax and backing down on softwood lumber litigation. He got only one thing in return: an $80-billion contract for Brookfield from President Trump. Is the money for his company the victory he promised to negotiate?”
“Madam Chair, absolutely; in fact, I would go even further. I thank the member for fighting for forestry communities right across British Columbia. I would go even further than he does. It is not just livelihoods. There are literally mill towns and logging towns that will not exist if this continued tariff applies. They are unable to sell their product into the United States competitively with a 45% tariff, an unprecedented tariff level. We need to save these mill towns and these jobs by opening up the market.”
“Madam Chair, I did put forward solutions. I said that we should make softwood lumber a priority in our negotiations with the Americans to reopen this historic market, a market that continues to increase its softwood lumber imports from Europe. Then, we should restart our legal challenge to the U.S. tariffs, which are illegal. Finally, we need to massively ramp up home construction by removing the taxes and red tape that are preventing Canadians from building homes. We are building fewer homes now than we did in 1972 because of red tape, bureaucracy and taxes. These homes could be built with Canadian softwood lumber.”
“That shows how much worse things are today than when the Liberal government took office, particularly when the current Prime Minister took office while making grand promises that he was a three-dimensional chess player who could outwit the world and get us a deal. I will tell the member what I would have done differently. I never would have dropped the legal challenges. I would have kept fighting to get our money back. I would have fought for every mill and logging town in this country. That is what I would have done differently.”
“Madam Chair, the member claims that this is a 40-year-long dispute, but he omits the fact that in the 10 years Conservatives were in power, we successfully negotiated an end to the softwood lumber tariffs. Furthermore, that was one time in 10 years, during which, by the way, the Americans actually paid back $4 billion of previously collected tariffs. By contrast, those tariffs came back in when the Liberal government took office. The Liberals have had three presidents and 10 years to reverse the defeat that happened under their watch. Not only have they not done it, but the tariffs went from their original 7% to 15%, and then when the Prime Minister took office, they went up to 45%.”
“Conservatives would put negotiating the end to the softwood lumber tariffs at the front of our objectives. We would take all taxes off homebuilding so that we can use more Canadian lumber to build more affordable homes. Housing, after all, is a tariff-proof industry, because after we build those homes in Canada, they do not face U.S. tariffs. We would speed up permitting, free up land and build more homes, all of which would revitalize and rebuild our logging and mill towns so that they can have great jobs, providing the best lumber anywhere in the world.”
“We have gone from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” That is the distinction between the pre-election Prime Minister and the post-election Prime Minister. I will tell members who cares: We care. We care about the workers at the 30 sawmills in British Columbia that have closed under the Liberal government's diplomatic failures. We care about the 150 union workers laid off at the Ear Falls sawmill. (1930) [ Translation ] We are concerned about the workers at Chantiers Chibougamau. [ English ] We care about the 150 workers who lost their jobs at 100 Mile House in B.C. amid market challenges. We care about the 350 workers at Sinclar Group Forest Products now facing a 40% production cut. This is a massive industry of over $20 billion that has more people working in it than steel, aluminum and autos combined. We need these jobs.”
“It was claimed that this was a “strategic choice”, that the Prime Minister was making some kind of brilliant chess move, backing away and giving a major concession to the U.S. administration without getting anything in return. Let us be clear: There is not a single American tariff that the Prime Minister got reduced in exchange for this concession. It was a unilateral climbdown, and since that time, the U.S. President has not only increased tariffs but also broadened them to new products not previously covered, such as cabinetry and trucks. The Prime Minister, who claimed that these tariffs were an existential threat to Canada requiring his immediate election back in the spring, now says, “Who cares?” when he is asked about how the talks are going with the U.S.”
“Furthermore, since the current Prime Minister came into office, not only has he failed to achieve the same as Stephen Harper did, with more than double the time as Prime Minister that Stephen Harper took to get a deal, but the tariffs have tripled, reaching levels not even imaginable before he took office. One might have asked what it is that he could have done differently. This Prime Minister not only failed to make softwood lumber a negotiating priority in his dealings with President Trump, but he unilaterally backed down. He reversed Canada's dispute of multiple legal disputes against the illegal and indefensible tariffs. I will read a headline right out of Bloomberg: “Canada ends fight against some U.S. softwood lumber duties”. The article states, Ottawa “has revoked two separate claims disputing U.S. anti-dumping duties”.”
“Before we go to the normal Liberal transition that they make around this time, from making promises to making excuses, when they suggest that there is nothing they could possibly do about American tariffs on Canadian lumber, let us be clear: Prime Minister Stephen Harper negotiated an end to, and refund of, American softwood lumber tariffs within 79 days of becoming prime minister. The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years, and it has not been able to get rid of the tariffs that were imposed on Canada mere months after then prime minister Trudeau took office.”