Pierre Poilievre

[Infrastructure, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the top public servant responsible for the infrastructure bank said it is designed for “underwriting sophisticated, highly complex projects”. The word “underwriting” comes from the 17th century London insurers who would literally write their names under a list of cargo on shipping vessels. If the ship sank, so did the underwriter's money. Why is the government forcing Joe Taxpayer to write his name under billions of dollars of losses?

[Infrastructure, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, currently, governments force infrastructure builders to cover cost overruns through fixed-price contracts and to buy bankruptcy insurance to protect taxpayers in the event the contractor goes under. The infrastructure bank would instead put all of these losses on the shoulders of taxpayers through loan guarantees. Why are the Liberals giving all of the profits to crony capitalists and all the losses to Canadian taxpayers?

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for introducing the report that flowed from the committee's work. The Conservative delegation to the committee has decided to submit a minority dissenting report. It operates from the ancient premise that doctors follow, and that is “first, do no harm”.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the condition of Canada's less fortunate, governments are doing plenty of harm. Witness testimony found that a growing list of government actions impoverished people and widened the gap between rich and poor, whether regressive consumption taxes, which disproportionately burden low-income people and enrich the wealthy and well connected; inflated electricity costs to subsidize green schemes; or snob-zoning, which is red tape that prevents the construction of low-income housing; these policies consistently keep people entrapped in poverty.

The Conservative delegation to the committee therefore proposes policies that eliminate the government interference that burdens our poorest Canadians, and empowers them to escape from poverty through hard work, community involvement, and a strong safety net that includes the charitable sector.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 29th, 2017]

With regard to the services related to issuing debt and selling of government bonds, since April 1, 2016: (a) what amount has the Government spent on services related to issuing debt and/or selling government bonds; (b) for each service in (a), what is the (i) name of the person or firm, (ii) service period, (iii) amount of the contract, (iv) reason that person or firm was chosen to provide the service?

[Points of Order, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I note the member said that the government responds to hundreds of Order Paper questions, and that is true, which is precisely why it is inexplicable that they took the time to insert additional factual errors in this particular response. This was not a mistake of omission, it was a mistake of co-mission. They committed the error of deliberately inserting false information in an Order Paper response, all the more egregious by the fact that they have so many other questions they could be dedicating their time to respond to.

[Points of Order, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I regret that I am not having a happy Friday. As a result, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the answer to Question No. 954 that was tabled yesterday.

Question No. 954 was submitted on April 3, and sought information on how the “Guide for Parliamentary Secretaries”, published by the Privy Council Office in December 2015, applied to trips made by two parliamentary secretaries. While this was a simple straightforward question, incorporated into the answer was a remark that was totally unrelated to the question. Further, I would argue that this unnecessary insertion had the effect of tarnishing the reputation of a former member of this House of Commons and constitutes an improper use by the government of the process of written questions.

In making the case for sponsored travel for parliamentary secretaries, the following appeared in the answer to Question No. 954, which states:

Moreover...John Baird, while he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, travelled to Washington...a trip that was sponsored by the American Israel [Political Action] Committee.

I suppose the government was trying to make the point that what was good for the Conservative goose is good for Liberal ganders. However, according to the list of sponsored travel submitted to the Speaker himself on March 23, 2016 pursuant to 15(3) of the “Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons”, it indicated that Mr. Baird went on this trip on February 28, 2015.

On February 3, 2015, a full 25 days before the trip in question took place, Mr. Baird announced in this House his resignation from cabinet, effective immediately.

This is not just sloppy research. I contend it is an attempt by the government to use a parliamentary tool not to aid a member as it is intended, but in an unorthodox manner to distort the facts and smear the reputation of a former member of this House.

Chapter 3 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states, “More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to...proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.” That is exactly what has happened here.

Whether or not someone was a minister of the government at the time is not a debatable fact. Having factually wrong, damaging information about a former member in a response to an Order Paper question does not just happen. These responses are reviewed by top advisers to the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and in particular the office for the coordination of parliamentary returns. Those parties are all meant to verify that a response is accurate. Normally they do an admirable job, with some notable exceptions that I have brought to your attention in the past. It is not believable that such an erroneous, vindictive, false statement about a former member of the House was drafted or prepared by Privy Council Office officials. They are far too professional in their work to ever have made such an egregious and obviously factual mistake. This was clearly the work of one of the Prime Minister's partisan advisers, who was trying to make a political statement at the expense of a former member, and of the truth.

I ask that you look into this serious matter and come back to the House with a ruling, Madam Speaker.

I would also ask that the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the answer, as it was signed by his own personal parliamentary secretary on his behalf, to correct the record, and to apologize to the Hon. John Baird.

In addition, I would like to reserve my right to raise this matter as a question of privilege in the event that the government insists on misleading the House on this matter.

[Taxation, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals say that this is really a simple way to reduce pollution. Let me quote the document.

If a Registered Fuel Importer imports fuel for delivery to a Registered Fuel Distributor, the levy will not become payable by the Registered Fuel Importer. The levy will become payable by the Registered Fuel Distributor when it uses the fuel or delivers it to another person in the backstop jurisdiction, unless that other person is also a Registered Fuel Distributor.

See, it is simple.

How much will it cost small businesses for the red tape of this new scheme and how much will it cost taxpayers for the new bureaucracy needed to implement it?

[Taxation, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal carbon tax is a game of hide-and-go-seek. The cost of the carbon tax is hidden in the price of groceries transported by truck or gasoline that people put in their vehicles, or the cost of heating their homes to stay alive. All of those things are hidden. When we seek the real cost, we find it is again hidden under a mountain of black ink in finance department documents.

Yesterday the Liberals released a 26-page technical document on their new carbon tax, but, once again, hidden was the cost to Canadian families. Will they end their game of hide-and-go-seek today and tell average Canadian families what the carbon tax will cost them?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of a visit I made to a grocery store in my community. A lady walked up to me with her daughter. The lady thanked me for having sent her a birthday card, as her autistic daughter stood in the aisle tapping her hands on the canned foods beside her. We talked for a little while, exchanged pleasantries and caught up. As the two of them were about to leave, her mother asked me when my birthday was so she could send me a card. I said told her it was June 3. Without even looking back at me, as she continued to tap away on those cans, the little girl said “That's a Tuesday.” We were in February, so I opened up my BlackBerry and sure enough, June 3 would fall on a Tuesday, a fact that she had instantaneously calculated, without even listening to our conversation. She did not even look back at us to show pride for her incredible intellectual accomplishment.

That led me to understand the treasures of the autistic mind, treasures that we do not yet fully understand how to unlock. They are treasures that have been glimmering in places all around the world.

I think of the famous Temple Grandin, who is an animal behaviour expert and the author of about a dozen books on autism and animal treatment. She has designed systems for slaughterhouses, which are now used to treat about 50% of the cattle that go into slaughterhouses and end up on the plates of American consumers across the United States. In fact, McDonald's has said that her standards are required of its suppliers because they guarantee humane treatment of animals.

How did she do this? How did she design these different systems? For example, there are dipping vats to disinfect the cows, grip flooring to prevent them from slipping, and curved pathways toward the stun guns so no animal can see the fate of the one before it, all designed to reduce the immense anxiety that would naturally come with that experience for the animal, which ultimately reduces the cost and increases the efficiency of animal treatment.

She did this because the visual track of her mind is 400% larger than the average mind, a fact that the University of Utah was able to establish when it did imaging of her mind. This incredible intellectual advantage was difficult to harness and easily concealed. When she was a child, it took her until age three to even learn how to speak. The amygdala in her brain was unusually large, which is the emotional nerve centre of her mind. A school bell sounded like a drill going off in her brain, which she explains in her wonderful book. These incredible sensory overloads almost incapacitated her completely, but for the fact that her mother believed in her and worked with her to teach her how to read, to speak, and write.

Meticulon, a company in Calgary, is turning autistic people into well-paid IT professionals so they can earn an independent life for themselves and eventually, hopefully, their families.

Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal, has said that he believes autism is almost necessary to be a successful innovator in the high-tech sector. This is the potential we have the ability to unlock.

However, we need the knowledge that the autism partnership would bring, the best practices to expand those successes across the country. For the small cost of a few million dollars a year, less than the cost of one Bombardier executive's salary this year alone, we could disseminate that knowledge and create a real success for Canadians.

I call on all members of the House of Commons to support that opportunity by voting for the motion and enacting it as quickly as possible.

[Taxation, May 18th, 2017]

It is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.