May 12, 2017

March for Life “rock star”: Pierre Lemieux on leadership, life values and beating Trudeau

Brian LilleyArchive

Unlike the NDP leadership race, the Conservative Party race offers a wealth of good candidates for party members to choose from, so how does one candidate stand out? I put this question and many others to Pierre Lemieux who was in attendance at the Ottawa March for Life.

Watch as Lemieux shares his thoughts on leadership, sets out his platform priorities, lays out his record of service whether to his family, the military or as an MP, and explains what he thinks Conservatives need to do to beat Trudeau in 2019.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-05-13 02:01:50 -0400
Jan G…..I’ve been a CPC member a long time and will be finalizing my vote soon. Trost for sure, still working on who else is worthy.
commented 2017-05-13 00:13:32 -0400
no Brian the liberals are below the conservatives since M103 came out they lost alot of support. Last poll had the conservatives 4 points ahead . Worse yet Trudeau has fallen to second behind former pm Harper. So why would you say that he is running high in the polls . the leader of the Conservatives have to hit back twice as hard at the news media.
commented 2017-05-12 23:31:24 -0400
I voted Erin O’Toole and Brad Trost.
I kept getting e-mails from Michael Chong supporters and I told them to remove me from the mailing list as I don’t have time for a poser, he’s a Liberal running for CPC leadership.
commented 2017-05-12 22:50:53 -0400
I did vote for Pierre Lemieux and Brad Trost.
Did everyone else actually take out a PC membership and vote?
Actions speak louder than words.
commented 2017-05-12 22:30:32 -0400
There is no candidate who will put at the very least, a temporary end to immigration. If there were one I would have voted for him/her.
commented 2017-05-12 21:39:23 -0400
Good candidate but no, thank you. He is for immigration and for refugees. I don’t want to hear this bs anymore, even if he seems to take security seriously. Experience all over the west has shown us that if it’s not the first generation, it is the 2nd that causes problems. The majority of migrants comes from muslim countries, and it is a big problem. We have high unemployment already, with half the population with $200. In their bank accounts. We don’t need fake refugees who do not fit at all here. Enough!!!!!!!!
commented 2017-05-12 18:54:13 -0400
Andrew Stephenson you do realize you can do that in Alberta as property owner right now eh?
commented 2017-05-12 18:53:22 -0400
Jamie sorry said pretty much the same thing , Andrew is so clueless it makes me laugh.
commented 2017-05-12 18:52:46 -0400
Andrew Stephenson the government of Ontario already does that and does not give a damn about the people live on the property. Do you know anything about reality?
commented 2017-05-12 17:32:49 -0400
“The property rights movement would be dead in the water instantly, the moment you told rural Ontario that it would mean their neighbours could build wind turbines with reckless abandon.”

Don’t follow you there, ANDREW STEPHENSON. I mean, windmills have been going up like sunflowers all across the province anyway…WITHOUT effective property rights.

The thing that is fueling windmills and solar panels boils down to opportunism (selfish greed) and callous disregard for the plight of fellow citizens. To suggest that the absence of property rights is some kind of a stabilizing influence just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The ONLY thing that has slowed down new wind and solar projects is the decrepit state of Ontario’s public finances.
commented 2017-05-12 17:30:55 -0400
There were two Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidates who spoke at the March for Life, Pierre Lemieux and Brad Trost, with the latter mentioning that he has attended the events for 12 years. So, in fairness, why was he not interviewed as well and allowed to lay out his campaign. Could it be Brian that Lemieux is a Catholic like you and Trost isn’t?
Trost’s ‘100% Conservative’ campaign policies match Lemieux’s and then some; for example, including privatizing the CBC, which should be of considerable interest to Brian, as well as being the only candidate who doesn’t buy the ‘science’ of man-made climate change and thus would introduce no initiatives to address this non-issue.
commented 2017-05-12 17:00:23 -0400
Jamie MacMaster

The property rights movement would be dead in the water instantly, the moment you told rural Ontario that it would mean their neighbours could build wind turbines with reckless abandon.
commented 2017-05-12 14:32:19 -0400
“I would vote for Pierre Lemieux…”

Not me, KEITH. Tell you why.

Back in November 2007 Lemieux fired the President of his riding association because she wrote a letter to a local newspaper after her daughter had been harassed at her workplace by a group of French Language activists. AND, Lemieux fully supported Russell Township (an Ontario municipality in his riding) when it enacted a bylaw forcing businesses to put French on their signs.

So, smilin’ Pierre may be a lot of things, but given his track record, it is laughable to claim that he’s a champion of freedom of speech or values.

And he’s no better on property rights. During the 2006 campaign Pierre (and Harper) had the effective property rights front and centre in his platform. Landowners were experiencing loss of land use, property devaluation, and heavy compliance costs associated with environmental regulations so Pierre was their Champion. Until he got elected, that is.

Between holding babies, cutting ribbons, and shelling out tax-payer millions to multi-millionaires, Pierre seemed to have forgotten all about his commitments to property rights. So in July 2014, I sent him a letter to jog his memory.

I anticipated what has become the pan-party default position for all politicians: “Sorry, like to help you, but opening the Constitution would be divisive, and besides, the provinces would never agree.” There are two responses to this kind of BS. First of all, a Real Leader would set the stage by holding a coast-to-coast referendum on whether Canadians thought property rights were worthy of Charter Protection. And I’m pretty confident that even in bastions of stupidity (Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal come to mind) a majority would (a) be surprised to learn that we don’t have them, and (b) mark an X for their inclusion in our much-vaunted Charter. Then, with this pre-emptive move, any likely opposition from provincial government would be effectively stifled.

Secondly, as an interim measure, there is absolutely nothing preventing any federal government from enacting legislation that provides Canadians with effective property rights. Think something along the lines of the Property Rights Protection Act – a law that (a) requires a needs test before private land use can be restricted, (b) restricts warrantless entry, © has provisions for fair and timely compensation, and (d) over-rides all provisions to the contrary in any other legislation.

So here is Pierre Lemieux’s response to that perfectly reasonable suggestion:

“One of the solutions presented by several speakers at the Property Rights Conference, however, were provincial initiatives, particularly those that would fairly compensate land-owners regarding use restrictions on their land. My understanding is that the law regarding compensation for the expropriation of land works well, but that there is little to protect land owners when the use of their land is restricted, often times by provincial regulations. I believe that progress can be made on the provincial level as it does not require opening the Constitution.”

Evasion at its finest.
commented 2017-05-12 14:24:23 -0400
I would vote for Pierre Lemieux, I to served in the REME (Brit, hence no C for Canadian), besides that, the Guy seems to make a lot of sense and dose not hesitate to express his idea’s. He makes a lot of sense.
commented 2017-05-12 13:43:48 -0400
Pierre Lemieux, thank you for your military service.