Pierre Poilievre

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to reflect on a budget that did after the election precisely what was promised during the election. We promised we could cut the GST. Done. We promised we would deliver a $1,200 choice in child care allowance. Done. We promised we would take taxes off of educational scholarships. Done. We promised we would bring in a tax credit to help with the exorbitant costs of university textbooks. Done.

We promised we would give a tax credit to help parents with the cost of putting their children in sports so they can keep their kids active, healthy and out of trouble. Done. We promised a tax credit, which the NDP once supported, for public transit, to encourage people to get out of their cars and into public transit in efforts to reduce traffic and pollution. Done.

We have gone further and faster to deliver to the people who elected us precisely what we promised them. Why will the member not rise in the House of Commons and say that while he may disagree with what we have done, at least he can admit that we have done what we said we would do?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned 1,400 child care spaces in his region of the province of Ontario. He claims that those spaces will no longer exist. In truth, they never did exist. The reality is that after 13 years of Liberal government promises, of which he was a part, not a solitary child care space was created and billions of dollars were spent. There were no results, zero, zip and zilch, in that order.

Today we are confronted with a new debate. Do we continue with the path of the last 13 years where the Liberal government had promised $1 billion a year to create day care spaces, which 19 out of 20 children would not have received a solitary space? Let us do the simple math of one child care space costing $40 a day and multiplying that times the number of business days in an entire year. If one plays the math out, there would be enough money for about 1 in every 20 kids to have a day care space.

Automatically all the families who have a stay at home parent, or who rely on a family member to take care of children, or who send their children to a religious-based child care option, or who have a neighbourhood nanny, all those options, which polls show are far preferred by parents, would automatically have been excluded by that plan.

We have a choice that is very simple: a 1 in 20 chance at a government day care space for one's child or a 100% chance at a $1,200 a year choice in child care allowance. The choice is a universal system of $1,200 for every preschooler or an exclusive government run option, which gives a child care space to 1 in every 20 children.

Why does the member oppose the universal option of giving every child the opportunity of the $1,200 choice in child care allowance? Why is he—

[Petitions, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I present the second petition on behalf of some of my constituents who are calling for peace in Rwanda and for redress for the crimes against humanity that have happened there in recent times.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two petitions on behalf of constituents in my riding of Nepean—Carleton.

The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to take a strong stand in favour of human freedom and against the oppressive conduct of the Communist regime in Beijing. By standing up firmly against the oppression and abuse of the Falun Gong practitioners, the government would affirm Canadian values of human liberty and respect for human rights.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Egyptian Christians from my constituency who are deeply concerned about the ongoing persecution of Christians who live in Egypt and across the Arab world. It has become regular practice for terrorists, extremists and even the government in Egypt to mistreat the Christian minority in that country.

It is time that we stand up against these forms of terrorism and abuse. It is time we stand up in favour of legitimate human freedoms.

[Point of Order, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During oral question period, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine attacked the integrity of the Minister of the Environment by saying that she was not an honest woman.

This is contrary to the rules of the House.

I am wondering if the Speaker could examine the rules to discover whether the hon. member should immediately offer an apology to this House.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us have some honesty.

I am sorry that there is a false impression in this debate, which has nothing to do with the facts.

If the government had made the wrong decision to continue to spend $1 billion a year to live up to the previous Liberal government's agreement with three provinces, there would have been only enough money for a day care space for 1 in every 20 kids. The other 95% would have received nothing at all. Those numbers are very easy to arrive at.

If we assume that it costs $40 a day for a day care space, we multiply that with the number of working days in a year and the number of children under six that live in Canada, we find that only 1 in 20 of those kids would have been afforded a day care space with $1 billion. It is very easy math. In fact, it is more like 1 in 23, but I will round it off and say 1 in 20.

That confirms what the lobbyists, who support the Liberal day care plan, have already said. They have said that to create a universal government run day care program would cost around $10 billion to $15 billion. Instead of giving 1 in 20 kids a day care space, why not give every single preschooler the choice in child care allowance?

[May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can put this matter to rest very promptly by simply saying that my remarks were directed generally at the past Liberal administration and not particularly at any one member.

I do not know this particular member personally, but I am sure he is a man of great integrity and my remarks were certainly not directed at him, his person or the office that he personally holds.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to putting this issue promptly to rest.

[Petitions, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that I introduce a petition by constituents in my riding who are concerned about the ongoing persecution of Egyptian Christians in their home country of Egypt.

Over the last several years, we have seen a growing degree of violence carried out by extremists and terrorists, and an Egyptian justice system which has failed to protect those minority Christians. These are the same kinds of terrorists who carry out terrorist activities against states like Israel, United States, Spain and other places.

It is my honour to stand in the House against them and in favour of the rights of these Christian minorities and, indeed, of all people around the world.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a number of colleagues have raised the issue of whistleblower protection in the House. I notice the member is supportive of the concept and the principle, as her party has been over the years.

This particular bill, the accountability act, would create an independent office with teeth. It would have the power to restore a whistleblower and to discipline an employer who has carried out a reprisal. Those powers did not exist under the previous Liberal government's bill, Bill C-11. Bill C-11 did not create those powers nor did it provide for them.

Furthermore, the accountability act would provide for a tribunal which would be comprised of, when needed, federal court judges who would hear these cases and have the power to act upon them. The whistleblower would then have the ability to appeal to a federal Court of Appeal.

These are solid legal protections for whistleblowers. They are totally independent from the executive branch of government. It is an unprecedented act of a government to relinquish this kind of authority and trust to an office of Parliament.

I wonder if the Bloc could confirm that they will support this ironclad protection for whistleblowers that the accountability act would provide.