Pierre Poilievre

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“Gas prices are higher now than they were in the past, even though oil costs less. Liberal taxes and a weak Canadian dollar are causing high gas prices, not the global price of oil.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the price dropped, but the price at the pump that I quoted was aligned with a $100-a-barrel price at the time. Apparently, the member was not aware of the fact that gas prices do not pre-emptively drop before oil prices drop. I think they need to get another economist over there to explain the basics to this guy. Obviously, when oil prices were 100 bucks a barrel under Stephen Harper, at that very moment gas prices were $1.38. Today, oil prices are, I think, $92 WTI, which somebody can look up, and gas prices are up around $1.80. The reality is there is obviously something other than the global price that is driving the cost at the pumps. It is Liberal taxes and the weak Liberal dollar. The fact that the member is as ill-advised as his leader, who was an incompetent bank governor in England and caused inflation and housing crises there, demonstrates that they still have not figured out that money printing causes inflation. They will never learn.”

“Gas prices are too high because of Liberal taxes and policies that weaken our dollar. I want the government to remove all taxes on fuel for the entire year to save drivers money. We can pay for this by cutting government waste, outside consultants, business subsidies, and foreign aid.”

“Mr. Speaker, because he is so bad with geography, he just received a demotion. With the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, with the price of oil at $100 a barrel and the price at the pump at $1.38, and I am not talking about today; I am talking about 2014. During the Harper years, global oil prices were higher than they are today, and there were wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, but the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today. There is no doubt that the price Canadians pay at the pump is indeed influenced by global conditions. However, that does not explain the current situation, because the conditions were exactly the same in 2014. Oil prices were actually higher than they are today and the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today. That is about 25% less. There must be other factors at play. These are not global factors. They are Liberal factors. What Liberal factors are affecting the price of gas? First of all, taxes are going up faster. There is a new carbon tax, renamed the clean fuel standard, which already adds another seven cents a litre and applies more broadly than the previous Liberal carbon tax. There are no exemptions for farmers, fishers or other food producers. Second, the GST rises every time the price of oil goes up, because it is a percentage-based tax. Lastly, we have a weak dollar. The Liberal Prime Minister holds himself up as a brilliant economist, but ever since he took office, the dollar has been extremely weak, even as the value of the main resources we have here has gone up. Our dollar is worth 72¢ to 73¢ U.S. When our dollar is weak, we pay more for the goods we buy on the world market. When our dollar is weaker than the U.S. dollar, we pay more for products priced in U.S. dollars. How did we get here? First, the taxes that the government charges on gas raise the price people pay at the pump. Anti-development laws are preventing us from developing our resources, leading us to have the second-longest waiting period for mining approvals, for example. These laws are reducing the number of dollars that foreigners have to spend to be able to buy our goods. This makes our dollar weak, which in turn makes our purchasing power very weak. At the pump and at the grocery store, Canadians are paying for the Liberal government’s “weak dollar” policies, which have not changed since this Prime Minister has been in power. He is following the same policies as Justin Trudeau, the same policies he advised on five years ago, the same policies that he promoted as a member of an anti-oil banking alliance. Canadians are paying the price with a higher cost of living that just keeps going up month after month. The Conservatives are proposing concrete measures to make life more affordable. We propose eliminating all fuel taxes for the whole year, which will save Canadians 25¢ per litre, $20 per fill and $1,200 by the end of the year. We are calling on the Liberal government to scrap its taxes and leave more money in Canadians’ pockets. How are we going to pay for it? We will cut red tape, which has ballooned by 7% a year. We will cut back on consultants, because the Liberals spend $20 billion in that area—twice what was spent in Stephen Harper’s final years. We will cut back on corporate welfare and the big cheques the Liberals hand out to large corporations that they have ties with and that have good lobbyists. We are going to cut foreign aid, because if we cannot pay the bills here in Canada, we do not have money to send overseas. We are going to cut back on waste and fraud, the fraudulent money we give to fake refugees. Just today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the government is pouring billions of dollars into rejected refugees, not actual refugees. These are five examples of things we can eliminate to reduce the cost of living at the pump without increasing the Liberal deficit. Canadians are paying too much because we have a government that spends too much. An affordable government will give us an affordable life. That is what a positive solution to fulfill Canada’s promise looks like: Working hard leads to a good life, an affordable life where people can provide for their children and have the means to enrich their life. Let me just recap the global situation. There are wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, we have an oil price around $100 a barrel and the price at the pump is $1.38. I am not talking about now. I am talking about 2014. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in power and wars were raging in the Middle East, in both Syria and Iraq. The Russians had just invaded Crimea and the global oil price was $100 a barrel, $10 higher than it is today, and yet the price of gas at the pump was 40¢ a litre cheaper than it is today. What explains the difference? Let us go further. In the United States right now, south of the border, Americans are paying, in Canadian dollars and in litres, 17¢ a litre less than Canadians. They have the same global oil price and the same global factors like the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and yet it is 17¢ a litre cheaper south of the border. Why? Sure, there are global effects that have influenced prices lately, but the bigger and longer-term costs are the Liberal government effects. One, it continues to impose a newly renamed and rebranded carbon tax, this time seven cents a litre rising to 17¢, but a broader tax that, unlike the earlier one, does not exempt farmers, fishers or other food producers. Two, the GST rises on the cost of a litre of gas as that cost goes up because it is a percentage-based tax. Three, we have an extremely weak dollar, and this is very unusual. Normally, when the world has high oil prices, Canada has a strong dollar because we have so much oil to sell on the world market. However, because the share of our economy made up of our oil exports is down, the link between oil prices and Canadian dollars is reduced, which removes the protection that consumers had from global shocks 10 years ago. Now, with a weak dollar and everything priced in U.S. dollars, globally priced commodities like oil and gas become far more expensive in Canadian dollars. A weak dollar means weakened purchasing power. Almost every foodstuff has either a North American or a global price. When we have a weak Canadian dollar, the ability of Canadian consumers to buy those goods is also weakened. A weak dollar means higher prices for Canadians. It is amazing that the Liberal Prime Minister, who has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade, has now delivered us a weak monetary base in this country. By printing cash and continuing to block resources, he has given us a weak dollar, which is incredible, because that was supposed to be his incredible forte. However, if we look back, he has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade: wrong on the carbon tax, wrong to oppose oil and gas, wrong to oppose the pipeline to the Pacific and wrong to support money printing during inflation. He is wrong again today by continuing to impose taxes on our gas. Conservatives have a motion with a very simple and obvious solution, which is to take all taxes off all gas for all of the year to save consumers 25¢ a litre, 20 bucks a fill-up, which is $1,200 by Christmas. Let us lower the cost at the pump to re-energize our economy, move the parts that make up our economy more quickly, create jobs, relieve families and unleash the power of our economy to restore the promise to our people.”

“I want everyone to agree to give the deputy House leader an atlas so he can look at a map.”

“Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the Clerk to provide the deputy House leader with an atlas so he can consult the map. Today—”

“The government tells British Columbians they might lose their homes instead of protecting them. Government guidelines tell federal lawyers not to defend private property rights first in court. I want the Liberals to vote for our motion, change those rules, and defend private property in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, they are bragging that, back in 2017, they agreed that they would inform British Columbian homeowners that they might lose their property. British Columbians do not want to be informed that they are losing their homes. They want to be informed that their government is fighting to defend their property. The hon. minister says they will debate it in the courts. They are not debating in the courts. They have a guideline. The Prime Minister has a guideline on the government’s website banning federal lawyers from arguing that private property comes before every other claim. Will the Liberals vote for our motion, reverse those instructions and defend property rights in court?”

“The government ordered its lawyers not to defend people's property rights in a British Columbia court case. Homeowners are worried about losing their homes. I want the government to vote for our motion and defend these property rights in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is more tax, more cost, more chaos and more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. Take, for example, the threat to the property rights of British Columbians. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend the property rights of British Columbians in the Cowichan case. In fact, they are forbidden to this day, based on guideline 14, which is still on the government’s website, from putting property rights first. That case is coming up for appeal. People who paid for their homes and paid down their mortgages are worried about losing their most treasured asset. Will they reverse themselves, vote for the Conservative motion and defend property rights in court?”

• Echo ×22

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister is just another Liberal.”

  Said 22 times by 14 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The Liberals cannot blame other countries for high housing and gas prices. Gas was 50 cents cheaper when oil prices were higher in 2014. I want the government to cancel fuel taxes for the whole year so people can afford gas.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are selling another illusion by trying to blame the war in Iran for the cost of housing. The homes are here, the land is here, the workers are here and the supplies are here. It is here at home that the costs have gone up. Let us talk about the energy crisis. There was one in 2014, during the Harper years. The global price of oil was even higher than it is today. However, the price at the pump was 50¢ per litre lower. Will the Liberals finally get rid of the Liberal taxes for the entire year so that Canadians can fill up their tanks?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The price at the pump was $1.38 per litre.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Gas costs more today than it did ten years ago, even though crude oil was the same price then. I blame Liberal taxes and a weak Canadian dollar for high gas prices, not global problems. I want the government to admit this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to blame global factors for the price at the pump, but that is an illusion. Over 10 years ago, during the Harper years, there were two wars going on in the Middle East, as well as a war in Ukraine. The price of a barrel of oil was also $100 back then, but the price at the pump was $1.35. That is almost 50¢ less than today. The difference lies in the Liberals’ taxes and the weakness of the Canadian dollar under the Liberal Prime Minister. Will the Liberals stop blaming global factors and accept that these are Liberal factors?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The price of a barrel of oil was $100, but the price at the pump was only $1.34 a litre.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 5.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“The Prime Minister tells his lawyers what to do. Right now, he is telling them not to protect private property rights. He claims in public that he supports property rights. Why is he saying one thing to Canadians and the opposite to his lawyers?”

“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?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The government did not defend property rights in court, and now people might lose their homes. I want to fix this problem today.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Buckley Belanger

“The Prime Minister says he protects property rights, but his government tells federal lawyers not to defend them in court against First Nations challenges. If he really supports property rights, he should vote for our motion to defend them.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“The Prime Minister is not approving major projects, and his government failed to defend private property rights in court. A recent court ruling in British Columbia puts Indigenous land claims ahead of private home ownership. I want the government to order its lawyers to defend private property rights, protect homeowners in any future Indigenous agreements, present a plan to protect property rights within 30 days, and have a committee study this issue.”

“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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “We would get rid of the industrial carbon tax.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The Prime Minister will not give a clear answer on whether he supports building a pipeline to the Pacific.”

“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?”

“Gas costs more today than it did in 2014, even though world oil prices are the same. I blame the Prime Minister's debt and carbon taxes. I want him to remove all taxes on gas for the rest of 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?”