Pierre Poilievre

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we speak regularly on this side of the House, and quite rightly, about Liberal corruption, Liberal theft, Liberal fraud. We have to repeat ourselves often because that is often the only discussion item generated from that side of the House.

This evening I am going to venture into some different territory. I am going to talk about the fundamental difference in philosophy that divides this side of the House from that side, that separates Conservatives, who believe in freedom, from the NDP-Liberal coalition, a coalition of corruption and socialism. I am going to give a few examples to illustrate this point. By the time I am through members will be convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that our party represents a vision of freedom that all citizens of the country can embrace.

I am going to start by talking about economic policy. Across the way there is a party that takes dollars out of the pockets of assembly line workers and reallocates them into the pockets of high priced CEOs and blue chip billionaires. That is the social justice they talk about over there.

What did they do recently? It did not get widely reported. They sort of went under the radar screen. They took a quarter of a billion dollars, $250 million. That number rings a bell. Everyone thinks I am about to talk about the quarter of a billion dollars of Liberal theft in the sponsorship program.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I believe that all families regardless of income should have some support for child care in those crucial early years. I believe that those dollars should go directly into the pockets of parents. Instead of sending the dollars to bureaucrats and public sector unions, we would give the dollars directly to parents.

It is interesting that the member asked a question about dollars allocated. The member did not mention anything about this, but I wonder what he thinks about the fact that in Quebec where the day care system is up and running, workers are going on strike. They are putting parents in a position of peril. Their position is being jeopardized. Those parents have come to rely on the system to take care of their children every day. They are paying for it through their taxes. Now it will not even be provided because the day care workers are going on strike.

Can we expect these kinds of strikes to occur nation wide? Can we expect nationwide day care strikes where parents have committed their children to attend a day care throughout the day? The parents rely on that service being there. A strike could suddenly be called and the parents would be left with no option, even though they had been forced to pay for the service through their taxes.

Those are the kinds of massive hurdles that will present themselves in this bureaucratic scheme.

I note also that the government member did not explain where the $13 billion will come from for the government day care scheme. Will it come from higher taxes? Will it require cuts to health care? Will it require cuts to old age security at a time when the baby boomers are moving into a higher age group? Where will this $13 billion come from?

Why is it that even though he has been questioned almost 10 times in the House of Commons, the minister continues to refuse to answer how much his day care scheme will really cost? He wants to keep it secret. He wants us to pursue a program that he admitted this weekend might never be able to work.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today in support of a motion that stands for the principles of parental choice and responsibility.

Right now the Minister of Social Development has proposed a $10 billion to $13 billion day care scheme that will mean higher taxes for families and, thus, fewer choices for parents.

Where do I get those numbers, $10 billion to $13 billion? They come from the supporters of the minister's program. They say consistently that in order to finance a massive day care scheme of the size and scope that the minister proposes, one would need to spend 1% of GDP.

Our national GDP at this time is in the neighbourhood of $1.3 trillion, meaning that 1% is $13 billion. The minister has tried to tell this House that he can finance his day care scheme with $1 billion a year, meaning there is at least a $9 billion gap in his day care scheme. The program will actually cost $10 billion to $13 billion and he has allotted $1 billion.

Therefore we ask how this $9 billion to $12 billion black hole will be filled. We know the answer to that question. It will be filled through higher taxes on working families and, thus, fewer choices for working parents.

When parents have fewer dollars left in their pockets, they can afford less choice. There are fewer options available to them when their financial positions are constrained. To impose a $13 billion tax obligation on working families and on parents would dramatically diminish the scope of child care options available to those families and to those parents.

I am proud to support a different policy that takes dollars and puts them directly in the pockets of the millions of child care experts who already exist. Their names are mom and dad. We believe in mom and dad. We believe in parents and we believe that no one loves the nation's children more than the people who gave them birth. It is they who ought to have the right to decide what is in the best interests of their children.

The social development minister would take dollars out of their pockets through higher taxes to finance a $13 billion day care scheme that those parents do not want. How do I know they do not want it? I know because the left leaning Vanier Institute, which conducted probably the farthest-reaching and broadest public opinion research of parents, told us so.

In fact, the number one choice among parents for child care options was to have one parent stay in the home. This choice was particularly popular among the female respondents to the scientifically conducted survey but there were a number of other options: having a family member provide child care throughout the day; having neighbourhood-based care; or having a church, synagogue or mosque provide the care throughout the day. All of these options found some support among parents but the option that the minister proposes finished fifth. It was one of the least popular options.

It is his position that we ought to take $10 billion to $13 billion out of the pockets of parents and taxpayers and put all of those dollars into the option that parents favour the least.

On this side of the House, we understand that the child care choice is not the minister's choice and it is not the Prime Minister's choice, but we have the humility to admit that it is not our choice either. It is not my choice or hers or his. It is not a choice for any politician. It is a choice for parents.

We will take those child care dollars and give them directly to parents because we have faith in their ability to do their jobs. We have faith in the love they have for their kids and their desire to see them grow and prosper.

Many of my constituents were deeply offended when they heard the minister refer to stay at home parents as being providers of mediocre child care and when he said that the desire of a young parent to stay at home and raise the kids was about as frivolous as wanting ice cream once a week or chocolate twice a day. That is exactly what he said before this House. He would be welcome to stand at any time and prove me wrong but those words are burned forever into the records of this House and they have done serious harm to parents who found them deeply offensive.

I think this debate will provide the minister with an opportunity to apologize for those very offensive and harmful words. It will also provide him with the opportunity to change course: to admit that his $13 billion day care scheme is unaffordable; to admit that it cannot be financed and will mean higher taxes and therefore fewer choices for parents; to renounce the whole idea and decide to put the dollars in the pockets of parents themselves instead. That would be a real act of humility but it would go a long way to restoring faith in this place.

I want to move on to some of the discussions that we have had in our party. A lot of young families are represented on this side of the House. We have a lot of young parents, some young mothers, and they have put forward some excellent ideas that are supported widely by the young families in my constituency. For example, how about a cash subsidy for parents directly? Let us send them a child care cheque so they can be helped with the daily child care costs they face. They can choose day care if they wish but if they decide to keep a parent in the home, that option would be supported as well.

Once again, that is not a choice for a politician to make. That is a choice for a parent. We on this side of the House understand that child care is not federal jurisdiction nor is it provincial jurisdiction either. It is parental jurisdiction.

The minister said that his plan includes choice, his government's choice. His government will choose how child care dollars are spent and, thus, the system has choice.

What he does not understand is that it is not his choice how to raise other people's kids. It is not his choice how to spend other people's money. However his $13 billion day care scheme takes other people's money and spends it on raising other people's kids. That runs contrary to basic respect of family jurisdiction, of the family unit.

Finally, he says that it is impractical to expect that parents' dreams of having one parent stay in the home and take care of the kids will ever be realized again. He says that is an old-fashioned idea, even though it is an idea that I understand his family used. I congratulate him for doing so. However he says that it is old-fashioned, that it cannot be done and, while parents are telling us that is what they want, that it just cannot happen. He says that statistics show that it does not happen. To whatever extent those statistics may or may not be true, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Government policy has made it impossible for parents to make the sacrifice of staying in the home. A much higher rate of taxation is imposed on a single income family than on a dual income family. If he really wanted to enhance child care options he would bring in income splitting, allowing parents to divide their income so that a single income family earning $60,000 would be taxed the same as a dual income family earning $30,000 each, meaning there would be tax fairness for those people who made the choice of keeping one parent in the home. That is a hopeful idea but it is the kind of idea that can inspire family life, rebuild communities and build a new sense of hope that one generation can pass on all the best to the next.

I would like to work with the minister to accomplish that. I hope he will stand in this House today and announce that we can get started today.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member across the way responded with great fury once again to my earlier question. I pointed out that he was at the committee listening to the testimony of Information Commissioner Reid. The Information Commissioner exposed Liberal tricks and Liberal loopholes hidden in the whistleblower law. That hon. member across the way was so furious that an officer of the House would go to lengths such as these to expose Liberal tricks he could hardly even speak. In fact, the member across the way stood in the House and acknowledged that he could not speak he was so angry. He could not even say a word.

I said at that moment to myself that the Liberals would come for John Reid's job because he did something rather remarkable. He exposed loopholes in a law that the Liberals were trying to pass off as a whistleblower law, loopholes that would have seen a sponsorship scandal that was covered up for as long as 20 years.

Those loopholes in the law would have prevented journalists and others from filing access to information requests, the kind of which were used to expose the sponsorship scandal to the Auditor General in the first place. In other words, this loophole would have made it against the law for people to inform the Auditor General and others of potential scandals.

The government wanted to sneak it in so it could never be caught again the next time it engaged in a scandal of this kind. John Reid stopped the Liberals. Now they are coming for his blood. They are coming for his job. They want him out of office.

Would the member comment on the shady motives of the government with respect to firing this honourable, decent man, Commissioner Reid?

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the real reason why that member and the Liberal Party oppose extending Mr. Reid's work is that they recognize that Mr. Reid has done an exemplary job of exposing Liberal attempts to cover up corruption.

The hon. member was there when Mr. Reid came before the government operations committee to expose how the current Liberal whistleblower bill could have covered up the sponsorship scandal for 20 years because of provisions embedded deeply in that bill. He made indisputable legal arguments to show how the Liberals were using the bill as an attempt to cover up corruption.

I remember that this particular hon. member, this Liberal member, was fuming mad with his presentation. He was furious that this officer of Parliament would dare expose this Liberal trick. I remember that at that very moment I thought, “They are going to come for Mr. Reid and they are going to take him out because he spoke up against a Liberal trick that the government wanted to sneak through the legislative process very quietly”.

Now that Liberal member is acting as a bodyguard for Liberal corruption once again, as he does in committee on a regular basis. The member has said that he does not have a problem with extending the term. Why will he not then vote in favour of the motion to extend Mr. Reid's term? If he is really telling the truth when he says he supports the extension of Mr. Reid's term, why will he not vote for the motion which would do that?

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be an advocate of accountability around this place. He has been a breath of fresh air in the House of Commons and in committees.

We were sitting in the same committee meeting when John Reid testified. I remember his testimony to be one of the most brilliant interventions I have witnessed in my short time here. I have not been here long, but I recall that intervention. It was very carefully laid out. He explained how the current whistleblower law that the Liberals have introduced would actually do more to cover up corruption than it would to expose it. He laid out his case in meticulous and legalistic detail.

I recall how angry the Liberal members on that committee were that day. They were absolutely furious that someone would expose these loopholes in their bill. I remember at that very moment thinking to myself that the Liberals were going to go for his job. I knew it at that moment. His willingness to be independent and outspoken in defence of freedom of information and in defence of accountability would mean he would pay a very serious price. We are now seeing those predictions come true.

I ask this question with a degree of sadness. I fundamentally believe that the government succeeds in corrupting the process of freedom of information. It will put a blanket over all of the corruption that goes on in government and prevent the light of day from ever shining on it. All of that Liberal fraud, Liberal corruption and Liberal bribery that we have learned about through the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery commission could be suppressed. It all came out because of access to information in the first place.

If the Liberal government succeeds in covering it over by corrupting the freedom of information process, scandals like the sponsorship affair will never reach the public eye. Had the Liberals succeeded in covering up the information process, we would never have known that ad scam had occurred. It might still be ongoing today.

I wonder if the hon. member is as concerned as I am at the deep-seated implications that may genuinely flow from the government's attempt to corrupt the freedom of information process. Is he as concerned as I am that this could lead to greater Liberal theft, greater Liberal fraud, and even greater Liberal bribery? Does he share those concerns?

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the real reason John Reid is not being renewed is because he has a record of exposing Liberal tricks, balderdash and eventually Liberal corruption.

I remember when he came before the government operations committee and exposed the numerous loopholes which the government tried to hide in its so-called whistleblower protection act. Those loopholes, had they been in place during the time the Liberal Party was stealing Canadian tax dollars through the sponsorship scandal, would have covered up the scandal for as many as 20 years. They were exposed by one man, by John Reid.

I remember the Liberal members who were in the committee room at that time. They looked him in the eye with great anger and disappointment. They realized that he was not going to be a lapdog to them. I see some of those members and the same sort of contempt that they have on their faces today is how they looked at John Reid that day. I knew they were coming for John Reid after that moment.

I knew they were furious that he was doing his job as Information Commissioner and that he was exposing Liberal tricks and corruption. Were it not for John Reid's testimony that day, those Liberal tricks would never have been exposed and that whistleblower bill would have become a full instrument to cover up Liberal corruption. That is the real reason the government is trying to assassinate an officer of the House.

Why will the member not stand up in the House of Commons and admit that is what he and his party are trying to do?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry for exposing a scam that had taxpayers pay 10 months rent for nothing.

As part of the Liberal rent for nothing scam, the minister admits that his Liberal friend broke the law. His solution was to just cancel the law, but there is a glitch. He could not cancel the law retroactively, meaning the fines for the period of the infraction when the law was still in place still applied.

Next week I have a solution. I am bringing forward a motion that would force the government to collect the fines of $100,000-plus from its Liberal friend.

Will the Liberal government--

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister admitted before committee that the Liberal rent for nothing scam broke the law and the lease, he used ignorance as the defence. No one in the government realized that the company's CEO had become a senator. Nice try, but not true.

Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister's office reviewed the deal and decided that this Liberal friend should get his money even if it violated the law and broke the lease.

Why will the minister not just admit that this Liberal rent for nothing scam went right to the top of the Liberal Party?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on the government to return to sound ethical practices and not to award these kinds of rental contracts to Liberal members of the upper House in violation of the rules.