CANDIDATE Q&A: Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party)

Pierre Poilievre

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve been publishing short Q&A’s with each candidate. We want to give our readers some background about each person and what motivates them to run for office.  In our final Q&A, we meet Conservative candidate Pierre Poilievre.

***

Do you live in the riding?  What neighbourhood?
Yes, I reside in Greely.

Why are you running in this election?
 I’m running in this election because I believe that with the world economy in turmoil, our Conservative Party offers a low-tax, balanced budget plan to protect Canada and help people in Stittsville and across Canada get ahead.

You’ve been out knocking on doors and meeting people in the community – what would you say are the top three issues with Stittsville voters?
I’ve knocked on thousands of doors in Stittsville and I’ve been hearing that people want us to keep taxes low, maintain a balanced budget and protect the country from terrorist threats.

If elected, what do you hope to accomplish during your term as MP for Carleton?
If elected, we will continue to keep taxes low for Stittsville families and local businesses.

Who is your political hero or role model? Why?
Winston Churchill

What’s the biggest challenge about campaigning in Carleton?
It has been a pleasure to get out to all parts of this new riding to meet voters on their own doorsteps.

In the past you’ve taken on some major responsibilities and high-profile positions with the government. How will you ensure that you have the time to effectively represent constituents in Carleton?
One of the best things about being a local Ottawa MP is that you never have to leave home. Besides attending riding events on evenings and weekends, I host monthly constituency days where I book full days of meetings with constituents to discuss their issues and priorities.

 

***

To learn more about Poilievre, visit http://pierremp.ca

Click here for more election coverage on StittsvilleCentral.ca…


SUPPORT LOCAL STITTSVILLE

SHARE THIS


4 thoughts on “CANDIDATE Q&A: Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party)”

  1. Sad to see the Conservatives focus on taxes, when they’ve committed atrocities in the past several years.

    Bill C-51 strips away our rights and freedoms.
    The removal of the long form census already has proven to be disastrous for providing meaningful research and policy making.
    The destruction of decades of scientific research and muzzling of scientists means policy decisions will now be made on rhetoric instead of facts, and out top scientists will move to other countries that cares about progress and advancing human knowledge, rather than repressing it.
    The waste of government money on “Action Plan” advertising.
    The removal of child dependent deduction on our income taxes while advertising the UCCB, means more government administration waste.
    The firing of public servants and replacing them with more expensive contractors.
    The Conservative’s environmental policy (or lack thereof) has made us a laughing stock throughout the world.
    The fostering of racism through immigration issues, and treatment of first nations people.

    Ugh… I could go on. You can keep your tax breaks, I’d rather have a government that has integrity, transparency, and does what’s right. I don’t want to be bribed with a couple of hundred bucks off my taxes.

  2. I don’t understand why people should be impressed by lower taxes, if that only means a little savings (it’s not like thousands of dollars are sent our way), at the expensive of an all time record breaking debt. Canada is now in debt over 150 billion dollars. When I have a credit, I don’t go hand out money for favors when I know that my children are going to have to pay that credit card off, or rather, have to keep servicing the interest on it.
    Canada, like many other countries, lost the ability to raise interest rates, when it’s needed (yes, a very low interest rate is NOT always the best thing, and yes, I like low mortgage interests myself, but everything has a logical balance or else things do not work). Interests may *have* to go up at some point. That would mean even more pressure on future generations. This debt problem is a serious problem. It takes away from future social programs, future generations having access to post secondary education because it’s impossible to subsidize their tuition costs. It will also continue to mount pressure on our health care system. It is almost as if these pressures are welcomed by the conservatives, because after all, Stephen Harper used to be president of the NCC, and one of their main topics was the privatization of health care. Cancellation of transfer payments have already caused problems.
    This debt problem might seem like a seemingly invisible non-issue while the world around us just keep turning, but this *will* come to haunt us, and if not, it will take away from our children. Pretending this problem isn’t real is a total cop out.
    So, while conservatives happily try to be proud of those “tax breaks”, and child support give aways (that actually turned out to be taxable! Watch your next tax return – that money has to be reported as income!!!), they obviously are trying again to pull a fast one.
    Plus being shady about incredibly high expenses like those 30 (60?) billion dollar jets that some high ranking army officials say isn’t even a good choice of jet at all.
    Plus all those decisions happening behind closed doors, without ever engaging the public or press.
    Sorry, but this simply must not continue like this. Enough is enough already.
    ps. I am ok with paying a little more taxes if it means that we get a stronger social backbone. I for one would like to see the elderly better supported and less people falling through the cracks. A happer society is a safer society.
    And about safety, what’s with the continued fear mongering about them terrrists…
    Please. Change change change.

  3. It just looks like he read talking points off a script… where is his authenticity? It honestly looks like he sent his answers in an email! And he says he lives in Greely here, but his website claims he is a Barrhaven resident.

    Furthermore, he didn’t say why Winston Churchill was his hero, so he only partially answered that question.

    The only thing here that impresses me is his monthly “constituency days”

  4. Having an open day in a constituency office is an extremely common thing for any MP. The only reason the others didn’t say it is because they are not (yet?) MPs. So let’s not be impressed by that.

    PP says we in Stittsville/Carleton have told him the top three issues are low taxes, a balanced budget and safety from terrorism. That of course is a lot of bull, but at least the first two correspond with what the NDP candidate also said we are saying. Still, I believe they are both lying.

    Speaking of lying, I was at the debate where PP flatly said the CPC’s new bill that allows a minister to revoke citizenship does not, in fact, allow the minister to do so. Instead, he said, it is the courts that do so, after first finding a person guilty of a terrorist offence as defined in Canadian law and prosecuted by the RCMP. This is a bald face lie. The government’s own website says “the vast majority of revocation cases will be decided by the Minister”. Furthermore, the grounds for revocation include conviction in foreign courts, event those that do not use standards of Canadian jurisprudence, or anything remotely resembling the “integrity” of our RCMP. Taken together, one could imagine that Stephen Harper himself could be convicted of terrorism in some foreign country. In this case, of course, our ministers would not revoke his citizenship, thereby demonstrating that the minister does in fact make the decision – in contrast to the lie told by PP.

    And speaking of Stephen Harper and terrorism, the other candidates have been pussy-footing around the issue, merely accusing SH of using the politics of fear. They have a point – let’s remember that Harper used the same horrific propaganda photos that ISIS used, for his own partisan purposes. The opposition needs to label this for what it is. The proper word for someone that tries to frighten and intimidate people into acquiescing to a political view is… “terrorist”. I think SH should be thankful he doesn’t have dual citizenship, or his shiny new citizenship law could conceivably be used against him in the future.

    The real danger with this citizenship law is that it enshrines the concept of some citizens (duals) as having less rights than others. I don’t actually see the current government or CPC abusing this (despite snarky comments above), but the issue is the danger it imposes in the future. The process is in place, and now all that is needed is for some future government to sneak in via an omnibus bill (ex. as widely used by Harper), a tweak to the grounds under which citizenship can be revoked. For example, the tweak might be: anyone who intends to harm Canada by voting for (some party other than ours).

Leave a Reply