Pierre Poilievre

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of laws and a legal debate. That is why I was so curious to hear the member speak for a very lengthy period, yet fail to mention where her party stood on our government's tough new measures to crack down on crime.

We have introduced numerous measures. We are raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. We are bringing in minimum jail time for serious offenders in place of house arrest for those serious criminals.

The member of Parliament is soft on crime and opposes these measures, but she does not want to say so out loud. She does not want her constituents to know where she stands on those issues.

The member does not have any view on our plans to toughen up dangerous offenders laws to keep them in jail indefinitely unless they can prove they are safe. She does not have any views on our decision to ban street racing. She does not have any views on any of those things. She will not tell us where she stands on a single one of those new measures.

She should stand in her place and admit that she is against those tough new measures and that she is against the majority of Canadians who support those measures. She talked about a lot of interest groups that are angry about some of the spending reductions we have made. She did not speak about the victims' groups and the police groups that have stood up very strongly and supported our tough new measures to crack down on crime.

Therefore, I urge her in her response to finally come clean with Canadians and admit that she continues to be soft on crime and that she and her party will continue to oppose our tough new measures all the way through the process.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that among the groups she listed that she did not list victims groups, victims of crime, who have been calling on the Canadian government to crack down on hardened criminals for many years. The Liberal government did not do it. We promised we would do it and we have done it.

We have brought forward 13 tough on crime bills before the House of Commons, such as raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 and making minimum mandatory jail time for hardened criminals.

The member did not answer why her party continues to oppose those measures or why she continues to defend a soft on crime position. Why can the Liberals not be honest and say that they are in favour of soft on crime policies?

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking today about questions of law but I noticed that she did not mention her party's soft on crime policies.

Our government, Canada's new government, has introduced tough new measures. We are bringing in mandatory jail time. We are putting an end to house arrest for serious offenders. We are banning street racing. We are raising the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14.

The Liberals stand opposed to all those measures. The Liberals are soft on crime. They oppose tough measures to crack down on violent offenders. They support house arrest for violent sexual offenders and they oppose raising the age of sexual consent to 16. They oppose all of those things and they are busy blocking those tough on crime measures in the justice committee.

Why is it that the Liberal member did not stand and defend her soft on crime position? Is it because she does not want Canadians to know how soft on crime her party really is? Is it because she does not want her electors to know that our government is moving forward to keep our streets safe through tough measures to clean up crime?

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments are quite interesting. He claims that his party is a major champion of the rights of francophone minorities across Canada. However, he contradicts himself. The sovereignty he desires and wishes to attain will divide Canadian francophones into two groups: Quebec francophones and francophones in the rest of Canada, with my father a member of the latter.

He wants to abandon francophones living outside Quebec. To state in this House that he wants to be their champion is a major contradiction.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South in the House of Commons on October 5.

The member for Mississauga South has claimed that he was threatened, that he felt intimidated and that his right of free speech was infringed upon.

Let us review the facts. During my October 4 address before the House of Commons, I pointed out that the Liberal Party was soft on crime. The member for Mississauga South, who is also soft on crime, rose on a point of order to interrupt my remarks. It was the 14th time that he had risen on a point of order in this Parliament.

In that interruption he began to refute my arguments and engage in debate. Your Chair, Mr. Speaker, correctly dismissed the member's intervention as a speech which was masquerading as a point of order.

This is nothing new for that particular member. He has a long history of abusing points of order. He has intervened to make 10 false points of order in the House of Commons. Those are 10 points of order that have been summarily dismissed or ruled out of order by your Chair. This occasion was no different at all.

Mr. Speaker, on the date in question, October 4, the member rose again on another false point of order which your Chair ultimately dismissed. After hearing this intervention from the member and after having been interrupted by another false point of order by the member, I strolled over to the other side of the House, as is my right and as is customary in this place as we can see members doing right now, and I told him that if he continued to interrupt me with false points of order that eventually I would need to raise a few of points of order on him.

However, he spun around in his chair very promptly and said that he felt threatened and intimidated. He then rose in the House of Commons the very next day on a question of privilege and announced that his right to freedom of expression had been robbed and that he was being intimidated into silence.

I find it difficult to imagine how he could have been intimidated into silence when he in fact was speaking in the House of Commons, but somehow he felt that was the case.

There is no basis for the member's question of privilege but in any of these the deciding factor is intent and it is clear that I had no intent of intimidating or threatening the member in any way. It is a logical impossibility that the member could have been silenced given that he has lavished us on two separate occasions with interventions in the House since that alleged threat occurred.

Beyond all of the back and forth, Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. I have done nothing to prevent the member from speaking freely. We know that because he continues to speak. There is no way that I could have obstructed him from carrying out any of his parliamentary duties because he continues to carry out those duties regularly.

Mr. Speaker, has the member given you one single solitary example of a parliamentary function that he has not been able to carry out as a result of my conversation with him on October 4? Has he been unable to call a constituent? Has he been unable to respond to a media question? Has he been unable to rise in the House of Commons and make an intervention? Has he been unable to attend a committee?

The answer to all of these questions is no. In other words, in no way, shape or form have I inhibited his ability to function around the House of Commons and, as such, he is rising again, as has become his custom, and is abusing points of order and questions of privilege for partisan gain.

I will say, in the interest of getting on with business around this place, that if my warnings of a future point of order in any way caused the member to become afraid or intimidated or made him feel as though he could not function around this place for fear that he might experience a point of order, then I apologize to him fully and entirely and I ask him to do the same and rise in his place and apologize for having raised 10 false points of order which have been summarily dismissed by your Chair as invalid.

Mr. Speaker, it is in this spirit of non-partisanship that I offer you my remarks and I thank you for your time.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I see we have struck a nerve here. I know that particular member has received a lot of pressure from his constituents, who are very angry that he broke his promise and that his party broke its promise to support mandatory jail time for hardened criminals. That is a big issue in his riding. That is why he leapt to his feet to try to silence me.

The reality is that we are getting tough on crime and we have kept our word, whereas the Liberals and the NDP, which claimed to support these tough on crime measures when it was election time, are now holding up at least 12 tough on crime bills that are before the justice committee. If they really believe in keeping criminals behind bars and keeping our families, communities and children safe, they will immediately pass these bills through the justice committee, out of the House of Commons, through the Senate and into law, so that we can make our streets safe again.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of the Conservative government's decision to get tough on crime. He is right.

We have made the decision to raise the age of protection to protect children against sexual predators.

We have cracked down on Internet child pornography.

We are bringing in tough three-strikes legislation to ensure that offenders who commit three serious violent or sexual offences serve jail time for an indefinite period of time.

We have replaced house arrest with mandatory jail time.

We are banning street racing.

These are the tough on crime measures that we promised during the election campaign and they are the measures that we are now delivering.

Here is the question. During the election campaign, the Liberals and the New Democrats claimed to support tough on crime measures. They claimed they were behind mandatory jail time for hardened criminals. Now that the election is over, they are breaking their promises and holding up these important tough on crime measures. We--

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member across complained vigorously about the Conservative government's decision to get tough on crime. He complained loudly that the Conservative government has introduced over a dozen tough on crime bills in the House of Commons. He complained that it is too much legislation for the House of Commons to deal with and that we should not be getting so tough on criminals.

I would like to point out that during the election the Liberals claimed, for about two weeks, that they too were tough on crime. They claimed that they too supported mandatory jail time for gun criminals and serious offenders. They claimed that after 13 years, they had learned their lesson and that all the soft on crime provisions that they had brought in over those 13 years would be removed if they were re-elected.

Now that they are back here in opposition, it is clear that they have learned nothing. The Liberals are still soft on crime. They oppose mandatory jail time for hardened criminals and gun criminals. The Liberals oppose our decision to end house arrest for serious sex offenders. They oppose our bans on street racing. They oppose all of our efforts to crack down on the growing scourge of gangs, guns and violence.

I have a question for the hon. member. Why will he not stand in his place and admit that his party, the Liberal Party, will always be soft on crime, and that crime victims can never rely on Liberals to keep our communities safe?

[Red Friday Rally, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, thousands of proud Canadians will show their support for our brave men and women who serve with honour in our military by attending a massive rally in front of Parliament Hill.

Thousands more are wearing red from coast to coast to show solidarity for those who risk their lives serving Canada abroad every day.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you made an honourable decision to allow the staff on Parliament Hill to wear red ribbons to support our troops. I thank you wholeheartedly for your decision. I invite these employees to pick up a complimentary red ribbon in my office.

A special thanks goes to my friend Lowell Green and 580 CFRA for bringing the Wear Red Fridays rally to the heart of our country.

All members should attend and show their support for our troops who serve in over a dozen countries, including Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line for our freedom.

I am proud to stand foursquare behind them and our freedom. God bless them.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners strongly support the government's decision to cut off both diplomatically and financially the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. They believe that Canada should stand four square behind the Middle East's leading democracy in Israel and that Canada should not finance a terrorist-led regime.

The petitioners also resent very strongly CUPE's decision to boycott products that emanate from that leading democracy, the state of Israel. I am proud to support them in introducing this petition.