Pierre Poilievre

[Public Appointments Commission, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, mixed metaphors aside, we are working hard to implement the Federal Accountability Act. I note that we have opposition members, particularly in the Liberal Party, who are now demanding to have it implemented after they delayed it for many months.

We will implement the act as quickly as possible. It does take time to get it right. We have put in place a schedule that was in the act. Do members know who voted for the schedule? It was the NDP.

Now the NDP should support the government in implementing the Federal Accountability Act. We are keeping our promises, we are keeping the faith and we are doing what is right.

[Public Appointments Commission, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like somebody has already passed the rum over to the NDP members because it is they who held up the implementation of a public appointments commission when they savagely attacked the reputation of Canada's most respected business leader.

We were in the process of setting up a public appointments commission at the time but, because of the partisan attacks that were led by Liberals, separatists and socialists, we were not able to do that.

We are now working hard to get that public appointments commission in place. We are putting in new bans on political patronage and we will ensure that all public appointments made by the government are qualified.

[The Environment, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week I made some comments about extremism in the Liberal Party, but I had no idea how bad things really were over there.

Not only has the Liberal leader caved to extremists and voted against his own anti-terrorism law, now he has been forced to flip-flop on the carbon tax.

Dr. Dolittle confirmed this week that he changed his mind and now supports a $100 billion carbon tax on Canadians. This would mean taxes of $12,000 for an average Canadian family of four.

We know Dr. Dolittle and the radical left now support thousands of dollars in new taxes for average families. From flip-flopping on terrorism, to waffling on Afghanistan, and now a $100 billion carbon tax that he once opposed.

For the love of our troops, for the sake of our security, and for the good of Canadian family budgets, let us not go back.

[February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should calm down, relax and take some pleasure in the fact that we are keeping a program in place to help not for profit organizations hire our young people for summer placements. The member should celebrate with us that achievement.

In fact, we are making the system more efficient so that more students benefit and more jobs are created. But again, because of our tax cuts and our sound economic management, and our debt repayments, the job market is hot. Jobs are being created. The economy is stronger than ever before and never in this country's history have so many Canadians been working. The country is on the right track. We are getting things done.

We are taking action and will continue to take action in the future.

[February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am very pleased to tell him that we are acting in the best interests of Canadians, and especially young Canadians.

We want to ensure our investments help those in need. We want to ensure that our tax dollars are spent as wisely as possible as we try to encourage opportunities and our strategy is working.

Because of the government's fiscal policies, the job market is hot. Unemployment is at record lows and never before have so many Canadians been working. Those are statistical facts. Let me give some examples of how we have achieved this enormous success.

The government, for example, spends over $300 million annually on programs to help Canadian youth through the youth employment strategy, part of which helps students get summer jobs. So the misinformation we heard about not for profits getting cut off is simply not true. In fact, we are going to continue to fund not for profit job opportunities for young people.

The government has also announced new investments of $20 million over two years in budget 2006 to fund projects designed to reduce youth crime and gang violence. That accompanies a whole package of tough on crime legislation designed to discourage crime. That is why the Liberal Party, in particular its leader Dr. Dolittle, should stop blocking that anti-crime legislation and help the government pass those bills so that we can make our streets safe.

Budget 2006 announced a textbook tax credit that will benefit about 1.9 million students with a tax credit worth about $80 per student. All they have to do is keep their textbook receipts and they will qualify at the end of the tax year for up to $80. Even if they do not work or pay taxes, they could keep those receipts and when they get out into the workforce, they can use all the years of textbook purchases and benefit from the tax credit later on.

The other good news that the member will celebrate with me is that we have eliminated taxation on scholarship income, so if students work hard and achieve, and win a scholarship for their efforts, they will no longer see that money taken from them by a government with sticky fingers. Instead, that money will stay in their studies. They will be able to use it to buy books and shelter so that they may continue to do their work.

We have also brought in a $1,000 apprenticeship incentive grant announced in last year's budget which that member voted against. Over 100,000 apprentices will benefit. Employers also benefit with up to $2,000 per apprentice for each of the first two years of their contract under the apprenticeship job creation tax credit. So employers who hire apprentices will benefit up to $2,000 per apprentice in federal grants to encourage them to hire and engage apprentices and give them on the job training.

People in my constituency are proud of what we are doing for the trades. It is not just about university students. Many of us here went to university, but let us not forget that many others have picked up the trades. They work in blue collar jobs. They build this country. They should be proud of what they do and we as a government should help them.

We are proud to say that we are leading, that we are getting things done for Canadians, and that we are producing real results for the Canadian economy.

[Leader of the Opposition, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Dolittle has done it again. The Liberal leader has flip-flopped on whether our troops should risk their lives in Afghanistan. He has now taken three contradictory positions on the mission.

First, as a former government minister, the Liberal leader helped send our troops into harm's way in Kandahar. Then, in opposition, he voted against that same mission. Now Dr. Dolittle says that he wants the troops to stay for another two years, something he voted against only two months ago. The Liberal leader is playing politics with the lives of our troops.

What kind of man puts our troops into battle as a minister, votes against their mission while they are risking their lives for it and then reverses himself again to support the mission when it suits him?

Dr. Dolittle cannot be trusted to lead our troops or keep us safe when he changes his mind every time he sees a new poll. The Liberal leader did not get the job done. He will never get the job done.

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Liberal position on Kyoto. Yesterday the leading Liberal union leader, Buzz Hargrove, had this to say about meeting our Kyoto deadlines. This is the same Buzz Hargrove who stood on a stage and held the hand of the former Liberal prime minister in the air during the last election.

He said, “It would be devastating for the whole community. Anybody that signed on. It is not even a remote possibility. No prime minister in any one of the parties in the House of Commons is going to bring in any kind of regulation that says that we can do that. It would be suicidal for the economy”. He went on to say, “If somebody were to come out tomorrow and say you can reach the objective that was laid out initially immediately, you would almost have to shut down every major industry in the country from oil and gas to the airlines, to the auto industry and that just doesn't make sense.

Buzz Hargrove, the Liberal union leader, who supports the Liberal Party, is prominently held among Liberals as a paragon of wisdom.

That concurs with the statement made by the Liberal environment critic who said that if Canadians saw the real costs of Kyoto, the $40 billion a year costs, they would “scream”. Those were the remarks of the Liberal member for Ottawa South, the high priest of hypocrisy on the environment. This is the individual who said that it would cost $40 billion a year to implement Kyoto. That is the Liberal environment critic, who is voting now in favour of that price tag to our economy.

Thank goodness our economy is in safe hands. Thank goodness the Conservative Party will implement reductions in greenhouse gases and smog in a responsible manner that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of everyday Canadians. Thank goodness that Canadians chose wisely on January 23, 2006. Let us not go back.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about those state run day care programs the hon. member alluded to. The member would like all Canadian parents who are now receiving $100 a month for every child under six to lose that money so that she and lobbyists from the day care industry can then decide how that money should be spent and then Manitobans would not have the ability to determine how to raise their own children.

The Liberal Party wants to take away the $100 choice in child care allowance that goes to every child under the age of six. Not only that, it would block the tough on crime initiatives that we are taking to clean up the streets in places like Manitoba, in places like Winnipeg, where crime is increasingly a problem and where streets are ruled by guns, gangs and thugs. The hon. member would allow that to go on.

We are acting to pass tough on crime legislation. Why are the Liberals blocking that legislation.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the astonishing things that the Conservatives learned upon forming government in January 2006 was that our Liberal predecessors would regularly announce their support for particular projects and then refuse to sign supporting agreements and, in the rare cases when they did sign agreements, they would not allocate any funding whatsoever to fulfill them.

I will give one example. The Manitoba floodway is but one example of a shady practice of where the previous Liberal government made a promise but did not allocate the necessary funds to fulfill that promise.

In September 2005, the then Liberal Treasury Board president committed to build a full floodway in Manitoba, a project that would have cost an estimated $665 million. He announced that the Government of Canada would cover half the cost of this project, approximately $332 million. However, when we came to office and started checking the books, we found out that the federal government had only agreed to contribute $120 million, a small fraction of what it had promised publicly. In fact, the $120 million only covered the first of three phases of the floodway.

Last summer, when the second phase of the floodway was to begin, we were facing possible work shortages because no actual money was available. Despite their much publicized promise, the Liberals had not actually budgeted the remaining $213 million to bring that project to fruition.

There is some good news. I am happy that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, acted swiftly to come up with an additional $42 million immediately to ensure that tendering and construction would remain on schedule.

As for the remaining $170 million, I want to assure the House that, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will ensure the money is budgeted and is available.

A similar situation occurred with respect to the labour market partnership with Manitoba, another agreement signed with great pomp and ceremony but never allotted any money by the previous Liberal government.

The government is engaged in ongoing discussions with all provinces as to how to assist each with its labour market development and post-secondary training. Unlike the previous government, which would sign agreements without funding, the present Minister of Finance is in the process of serious discussions about how best to restore fiscal balance.

Since forming government in January 2006, Canada's new government has cooperated with provincial governments and private sector partners to see that projects, like the Manitoba floodway project, have the funding that was promised so we can deliver real results for real people.

That is what this government is all about. We make a promise and we deliver, instead of following the ancient practice of the previous government of making false promises that it had no intention whatsoever of keeping and for which it did not allocate a single, solitary red cent in order to honour.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal culture of entitlement lives on and the Liberal leader is too weak to do anything about it.

Last year the Conservative government introduced a bill to limit Senate terms to eight years. The opposition leader said he was on side. However, the Liberal Senate has now taken 261 days on the 66-word bill. That is an average of four days for every single word.

We know Liberal senators would rather keep a 45 year guarantee on their jobs. Why will the Liberal leader not step in and force them to get it done? Is it because he is too weak to get the job done?

He was a minister during ad scam. He is now inviting back all the ad scam criminals to take part in his party. When it comes to entitlement, it is clear that the Liberal leader is still too weak to get the job done.

Let us not go back.