I’m making this blog post and video to document (practical?) policies that I’ve heard/read Pierre Poilievre express. For each policy, I will include the excerpt as well as my analysis of it to connect the dots between stated policy and desired / expected results. This is evident in the first policy that incentivized me to create this blog post.

Housing Affordability

Timestamp Pierre Poilievre C-31 Response @ 10:08.

[En Français] The conservative government will tie infrastructure dollars for major cities where properties are too expensive to the number of housing units built. This will help to reduce the cost of construction permits, allow us to build more, and we will insist that every time the federal government has a new transit station that the land around must have houses and apartments in order to densify so that people can live near public transit. And third, we will sell 15% of the 37,000 [5,550] federal buildings in order to transform them into housing and create millions and millions places for young people to live and start their families.

Analysis: By tying infrastructure $ to # houses built for specific cities, cities will have a great incentive to allow more houses to be built, and since they want to get more net money, they would have to allow more permits, speed up constructions (possible by improving efficiency of inspections since the city itself isn’t the builder); To allow more permits, either costs go down so that more builders apply (I’m not sure how expensive construction permits are but if they are 100k+ then yeah its a barrier to entry and causes higher housing prices), or approval process improves. A faster approval process means there is a greater incoming supply of housing every year. The next point is to INSIST not ENFORCE federal departments to build public transit stations around places where people live. The intention is to densify (true, cities like Toronto have low density compared to other cities) as areas with public transit are more desirable and thus more housing units will be built there (higher willingness to pay therefore higher incentive to supply). It’s important that this is an insist and not an enforcement to account for the « rare » case that near max densification and public transit has occurred. There will always be edge cases on building transit like for example planned development. So by saying insist and not enforce the government doesn’t have to add more bureaucratic measures. An enforcement would basically entail a/many new minister(s) in charge of approving every transit station proposed by the relevant department in charge of public transit (department of transportation?). Additional bureaucracy would be hypocritical for the CPC, specifically Poilievre.

Poilievre’s last point is to sell ~5,500 federal buildings and transform them into housing to create MM and MM¹ of places to live, and this is an obvious hyperbole. It’s impossible to put a fine number but if we assumed each of these buildings were to be replaced by an apartment, we could see 132 * 5,500 = 742,000 housing units. The 132 units per apartment building comes from Quora so the total units is ball park figure but better than a hyperbole.

In conclusion, I myself had not thought of this policy and it’s great Poilievre came up with something new that can be summarized as bullying (my words not his) or incentivize cities into submission rather than trying to impede their municipal rights. This is a heck of a lot more practical than simply stating “we will increase construction permit approvals.” The policies I had come up with to address housing affordability can be found here.

Axing the Carbon Tax

Consumer carbon tax was axed on April 1st, 2025.

Pierre Poilievre has promised to axe the carbon tax without replacing it.

Repealing Bill C-69, the Anti-Road Bill

C-69, the Impact Assessment Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 4 years after it was passed! Only the Cedar LNG project has passed the IAA (in record time, and no doubt because of using BC as a substitute).

Constitutional challenge successful

The Impact Assessment ACt (IAA) stipulates that an impact assessment is necessary when a designated project (a physical activity on Canadian land and has been designated by the Minister of Environment. Where that list of regulations made for physical activities is? No idea).

There isn’t much information on this topic, but from https://atbcapitalmarkets.com/insights/the-bill-c-69-aftermath, it seems Bill-69 could potentially create infinite delays; incorporate ’traditional Indigenous knowledge’ and ’the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors’ which is ridiculous if the topic at hand is natural gas, oil sands, or a Uranium mine; THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT HAS VETO POWER WITH EVERY PROPOSAL!!!!

Even without any funding by corporations, being against this bill has merit. Poilievre is arguing from a point of improving energy independence, however I feel that the benefits are much more broader and not just restricted to energy. The bill supposedly impeding pipelines does have some merit as presently any pipeline proposal could be declined simply because the Minister of Environment doesn’t want it approved or stalled by the Governor in Council.

The Impact Assessment Act protects the environment from projects like roads, which do exist by the way. If the Impact Assessment Act came before the major highways, it would take decades for the highways to even be built. Of course the “conservative” Doug Ford passed a bill that allows only highways to skip the Impact Assessment Act.

Disability Benefits Will Continue With Employment

Bill C-395 was sponsored by Poilievre in 2018 as a private member’s bill. The goal of this bill was to ensure that people with disability benefits could continuing receiving those benefits while working.

Every Dollar Spent Should be Accompanied with a Dollar Received

The idea is that politicians need to be forced to keep the budget balanced in order to reduce debt and prevent excess aggregate demand (→ inflation). Poilievre used the bill under Clinton as an example.

Reversing Gun Bans

Pierre Poilievre has promised to undo the gun bans passed under the NDP/LPC coalition.

Axing GST on New Homes Under 1.3 Million Dollars

Read my other post

GST cuts are needed because when the GST was first enacted, all new houses were covered under the $450,000 or so threshold. Of course, resale houses were selling for that much by the mid 2000s! In Ontario, after interest rates were hiked and temporary immigration turned off, investors have been spooked and are no longer willing to pay the same price for preconstruction condos. For years developer charges and housing prices went up faster than inflation, and now that prices are falling, developer charges are not! A GST and HST cut will ensure that these preconstruction houses can be sold at the market clearing price. As it stands now the price for the developer to profit at their hurdle rate is higher than the price that would clear the market.

I am doubtful the country can create enough jobs in a short period of time to raise wages up and increase demand for housing, especially when these new builds are more expensive and less spacious than the existing housing supply that people who are willing to downsize live in.

Axing GST on Canadian-Made Cars

Poilievre To Axe GST on Canadian-Made Cars, Create ‘Keep Canadians Working Fund’

Double Small Craft Harbours Program

Put Canada’s Fisheries First – For a Change

Approving the LNG Newfoundland and Labrador Project

Poilievre Will Unleash Newfoundland and Labrador’s Energy

Dropping the Lowest Income Bracket by 2.25%

Poilievre To Cut Income Tax By 15% For The Average Canadian

dropping the tax rate on the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 12.75%

The phrasing means that the average Canadian will see their tax bill decrease by 15% due to how the nominal tax bill number actually changes compared to a small decrease in the actual rate.

the average Canadian worker earning $57,000 will save $900

Another way to read this is that anyone earning 57,000 or more will save $900 over the year in taxes or $34.61 per pay cheque. This covers my gym membership so I welcome it, but it wouldn’t be a deal-breaker to match Carney’s lower income tax cut.

Rolling back Catch & Release Laws

Removing Alcohol 8 Years of Alcohol Taxes

Blue Seal Standard

A common standard among the provinces. Poilievre calls for changes to allow doctors, nurses to work across Canada

Sources

• Pierre Poilievre on C-31 Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 9/22/2022