Pierre POILIEVRE

POILIEVRE, The Hon. Pierre, P.C., B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative
Constituency
Carleton (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 3, 1979
Website
http://pierremp.ca
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ad4032f2-6bb1-497b-b146-f321cfb71ba9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Email Address
pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca
Profession
businessman, communication consultant, policy analyst

Parliamentary Career

June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
CPC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
CPC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (February 7, 2006 - November 6, 2008)
October 14, 2008 - March 26, 2011
CPC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (February 7, 2006 - November 6, 2008)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (November 7, 2008 - May 24, 2011)
May 2, 2011 - August 2, 2015
CPC
  Nepean--Carleton (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (November 7, 2008 - May 24, 2011)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (May 25, 2011 - July 14, 2013)
  • Minister of State (Democratic Reform) (July 15, 2013 - November 3, 2015)
  • Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform (February 9, 2015 - November 3, 2015)
October 19, 2015 -
CPC
  Carleton (Ontario)
  • Minister of State (Democratic Reform) (July 15, 2013 - November 3, 2015)
  • Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform (February 9, 2015 - November 3, 2015)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 689 of 690)


October 12, 2004

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to further elaborate on the theme that the hon. member laid out in her presentation, which is the constant intrusion of the federal government into the areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The throne speech promises to further erode provincial jurisdiction with a pledge to assemble a massive, multi-billion dollar government-led child raising program it calls child care. This is an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is not part of the competence of the government. However, at the same time it applies a tax burden on the average family that is so burdensome it is inadequate for one parent to go out into the workforce and raise income by him or herself. As such, both parents have to go out to work.

The overall policy direction of the government is to discriminate against those families who make the sacrifice to keep one parent in the home to raise the children and instead forces upon them a decision that is not their first prerogative, which is a government-led child raising program.

I wonder if the hon. member might expound upon her earlier discourse about the intrusions into provincial jurisdiction with particular reference to this upcoming proposal.

Topic:   Speech from the Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
Full View Permalink

October 12, 2004

Mr. Pierre Poilievre

Madam Chair, the parliamentary secretary pointed to his government's willingness to listen to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association's suggestions with respect to dealing with this crisis.

I would like the hon. member on the government side to discuss with me why it is that the government was reluctant to look at a temporary income tax deferral to help producers temporarily suffering with this crisis and why the government refused to look at tax averaging options to balance over a 10 year period. Why were we not able to balance over a 10 year period tax payments for those producers who have decided to exit the market?

Finally, could the hon. member talk to us a bit more about the government's plans to provide tax incentives that would help attract capital investment, venture capital, to increase slaughter capacity here in Canada?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Agriculture
Full View Permalink

October 12, 2004

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC)

Mr. Chair, it is indeed an honour to rise today on this special occasion to address this important issue. I would like to begin by thanking my constituents in Nepean--Carleton for entrusting me with the sacred honour of representing them and their interests here on the floor of Canada's House of Commons.

When I think of my constituency, my thoughts often turn to the rural agrarian portion of the area that I represent. I think of the cornfields of North Gower or the pumpkin fields in the old township of Osgoode. I think of how hard my constituents have worked to develop strong agricultural industries.

That is why it was a heartbreaking experience for me to watch as $6 billion in wealth was destroyed by this crisis, by this impending problem that we face with the mad cow crisis. There have been 4,200 jobs lost in the beef industry alone. So far, I regret to say that the government's response has been half-hearted at best and disastrous at worst.

To begin with, in my constituency a large number in the cattle industry focus on the dairy side. The CAIS program which the Liberals have offered does not help farmers in the dairy industry. It is so riddled with bureaucratic regulations and forms which take forever to fill out and are never available that it does not often help those in the beef industry either. That is why I will focus my attention on three specific issues that I believe can happen domestically, and then one overriding issue that needs to happen internationally in order to resolve this problem.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association proposed a tax strategy which was totally ignored by the government. First of all, it proposed tax incentives for new slaughterhouse capacity, that is, to encourage new capital investment in slaughterhouse capacity across Canada. As hon. members have already pointed out, we cannot even service our domestic demand because we do not have the domestic slaughterhouse capacity to bring our beef to market. It is not just a matter of selling beef; it is a matter of getting that beef to our own market.

The association also proposed tax deferrals. Tax deferrals would help ease and mitigate the immediate burden associated with this sharp distortion to our economy. It would help those farmers who are in desperate need today deal with their cash flow problems by allowing them to have a temporary break from the enormous burden they are forced to carry as Canadian taxpayers. Tax averaging would also help those farmers who unfortunately have been forced by circumstances to exit the market. Many of them have done so in my own constituency. When it happens, tragically it is unfortunate to see that they have to pay enormous tax burdens on a one time basis because they are liquidating their assets all at once. We believe there should be tax averaging.

Those are all proposals that came from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and were ignored by the government.

I will now turn my attention to the international focus. The hon. member across the way is right to focus on developing new markets internationally, but as I pointed out earlier, we cannot even service domestic retail demand because we do not have the slaughterhouse capacity to do it. As a result, we are not able to project our industry any further at this point in time into the international markets.

We need to focus on getting the American border open. To start with, we need to acknowledge that yes, the Americans are wrong. Their trade policy has been protectionist and it is bad policy for Canada, but it is also bad policy for the United States of America. The reason the Americans were importing live cattle before this crisis is that they could get it for a better price at a higher quality. As a result, the government should have built strong relationships with consumer groups who have a vested interest in bringing Canadian live cattle into their market. It should have built those relationships to ensure that we would have greater domestic pressure on the American government to get the borders open.

Instead, the peanut lobby in the United States, in Washington, is more powerful than the Canadian presence in the U.S. capital. We need to build our presence there. We need to link arms with those senators who are in states that import Canadian live cattle. We need to link arms with other groups that have an interest in our exporting to the United States of America and build a strong domestic pressure movement to get the border open.

We need a renewed focus on this issue to resolve this problem in an orderly fashion so that constituents in my riding and across the country will be relieved in their suffering and our foreign markets will once again rightfully be open to Canadian cattle.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Agriculture
Full View Permalink

October 12, 2004

Mr. Pierre Poilievre

Mr. Chair, I certainly agree with the hon. member in his characterization. I would add that it is impossible for this industry to get back on its feet until two things happen: slaughterhouse capacity is expanded and access to our largest market is obtained.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Agriculture
Full View Permalink

October 12, 2004

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke often of immigrant communities in the country. I have some of those immigrant communities in my own constituency and many of them of Taiwanese background have come to me with concern that the World Health Organization does not recognize their home jurisdiction or observer status at the World Health Organization.

This issue came before Parliament not long before the last election. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the observer status of Taiwan at the World Health Organization. It is with great sadness, however, that this community learned that the diplomats of our country stood up at Geneva and in the end voted against the will of Parliament. They decided to collapse under pressure from communist China and oppose the recognition of that small democratic island at the World Health Organization at a time when east Asia and indeed much of the free world was suffering with the problem of SARS.

Imagine a jurisdiction like Taiwan with 23 million people suffering from SARS not having recognition at the World Health Organization. How does this hon. member stand in support of the throne speech when her own government voted against the will of this Parliament, voted against the health of all people, and voted against the basic recognition of what Parliament had said?

Topic:   Speech from the Throne
Subtopic:   Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
Full View Permalink