Pierre Poilievre

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I trust the minister's next answer will be commensurate with the time it takes to ask the question. How much will it cost to fully implement his national day care bureaucracy? How much will it cost per year to fully implement that program?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let us be honest. What the minister is talking about is a $10 billion to $12 billion day care bureaucracy, which will mean higher taxes for families and few choices for parents.

The minister is not being honest about the full cost of his program. In fact, all the groups that support this day care bureaucracy say that it will cost in the neighbourhood of $10 billion to $12 billion.

The New Democratic Party has said in this House of Commons, and this is the party that wrote the latest budget, that it will cost at least $10 billion.

The major groups that have researched and support the minister's day care bureaucracy say it will cost $10 billion to $12 billion.

Yet he is trying to convince the Canadian people that it will only cost $1 billion per year. Why is the minister hiding approximately $10 billion in real costs to taxpayers for his program?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for representing his constituents and standing up against Liberal corruption, theft, bribery and extortion. I congratulate him for having done that.

My question pertains to one particular point the member raised in his speech. The member points out that if, as the Liberals suggest, Justice Gomery is really authorized to point fingers and name names, then this motion at worst ought to be considered redundant. It merely restates a right that the government claims Gomery already has. Would the member please explain that?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that we are all here today once again discussing the issue of Liberal fraud, Liberal bribery, Liberal corruption, Liberal theft and overall Liberal mismanagement.

We hear today Liberals trying to find ways to block the public from finding out who was to blame for all this Liberal theft and Liberal bribery.

As it relates to the subject of Liberal fraud, I want to ask the member a question about this secret clause (k) that was put into the terms of reference. The hon. member has pointed out that there is no reason why Justice Gomery should not be able to point his finger at those who are guilty and expose those who partook in the Liberal fraud.

However, we heard from the minister across the way who told us that Justice Gomery already had that right. Moments later he said that if we were to give him that right, we would derail the entire process that had been set in place for the Gomery inquiry.

I see a contradiction. If Gomery already has the right to point fingers with respect to Liberal fraud and Liberal corruption, as the minister pointed out, then why would our motion in any way inhibit Mr. Justice Gomery's work? If our motion merely restates a right that the minister claims Gomery already has, then he should not see it as any obstruction. It should merely be a reinforcement of the status quo.

Does the hon. member agree that there is a contradiction?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the hon. member's extremely intolerant approach and the fact that she is suggesting that this is not an issue that affects women. She is suggesting that I was wrong to point out that this is a matter that is deeply concerning to women, particularly young women.

In my constituency I probably have the highest percentage of young families of any constituency in Canada. They are telling me that they do not want to pay higher taxes to afford a $10 billion day care bureaucracy. They are telling me that they would rather have the dollars put right into their pockets.

The hon. member asked about the cost of our program. Because our program puts dollars directly in the pockets of parents, we cut out all the bureaucracy. Second, it is easily calculated because the amount that we will put directly into the pockets of parents is merely multiplied by the number of children for whom that credit is provided. We can provide these dollars without bureaucracy and we can allow parents and women to decide for themselves how those dollars are spent.

The United Nations has recognized that the system of taxation that the government has in place is discriminatory because it does not recognize the economic and social value associated with stay at home parenting. The United Nations points out that it is an offence to basic human rights that the government taxes families with single incomes at a higher rate than families with dual incomes.

We would put an end to that human rights violation. We would put child care dollars directly into parents' pockets and let women and families decide for themselves. I am proud to say that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today. We look across the floor at a government that is corrupt and ruining our country's finances. We have seen this corruption exemplified by the Liberal ad scam, the $2 billion gun registry and the $1 billion boondoggle of HRDC. However, in the latest effort of the government in its NDP budget, we find a more egregious waste of tax dollars.

I suggest that perhaps the most outrageous example of hidden costs contained in the budget are found in its seemingly altruistic promise to bring in a government day care bureaucracy. Liberals are telling the Canadian people that they can bring in a government day care bureaucracy, applicable to every child, at the cost of $1 billion a year. In reality, we know the cost of this program is approximately 10 times that amount.

The government day care bureaucracy will impose a $10 billion a year burden on taxpayers and take away choices from women and families. I will demonstrate that today irrefutably with the evidence I have on my desk. However, better than that, I will bring hope to Canadians by proposing an alternative that gives choice to women and families. The Conservative Party and its leader believe in a woman's right to choose how to raise her children. That right we are prepared to defend on the floor of the House of Commons.

Let us start by demonstrating that the Liberals' plan is 10 times more costly than they are prepared to allow Canadian people to understand. Recall that the Liberals said that the gun registry would cost only $2 million. It is now 1,000 times over budget. We on this side of the House gave warnings, which were unheeded. Thus, today we have a $2 billion monstrosity that not only harasses duck hunters and farmers and takes choices away from them, but imposes greater burdens on taxpayers.

Likewise, we have before us the government day care bureaucracy. I will look at the evidence. The government tells us that the program will cost only $5 billion over five years, in other words, approximately $1 billion a year. However, let us look at the words of minister responsible for social development. I do not know if he realized that he was being recorded when he made this promise at a community event. He said:

And the nice thing about it all $5 billion over five years does not create a system. What it does is set things in motion.

He went on to say that the $5 billion would only be enough to create bits and pieces and fragments of a system. If it is going to cost $5 billion over five years to create bits and pieces and fragments, how much is it going to cost to make universal the government day care bureaucracy?

It is not just a rhetorical question. I have with me a list of organizations, most of them government funded, that support the day care bureaucracy proposed by the minister and the Liberal government. I have visited their research studies on the cost of the program. Remember that all these organizations are supportive of a government day care bureaucracy. Let me give an example of what they have said.

I have here a document from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. It indicates that the full cost of a government day care bureaucracy, the kind that the Liberals are proposing, is 1% of GDP. That does not sound like a lot, but that 1% is deceptively large. We are talking about $10 billion per year, not $1 billion as the government claim. This means there is a $9 billion black hole in the government's day care bureaucracy promise.

Where will the government get that $9 billion? It cannot merely be pulled out of thin air. It will have to be taken from the pockets of parents through higher taxes. A $9 billion obligation, whether it is borne partly by the provinces and partly by the federal government, there is only one source of revenue from which that $10 billion can come and that is out of the pockets of taxpayers. If the government claims otherwise, it has to demonstrate which other programs it is prepared to cut, health care perhaps, or whether it is willing to run a budgetary deficit.

However for the government to claim that it can bring in a universal day care bureaucracy for only $5 billion over five years is deceptive, as has been admitted by the minister responsible who says that $5 billion over five years “does not create a system”, and who then goes on to say that it will merely create bits and pieces.

The organization I quoted gave us this document entitled, “From patchwork to framework: A child care strategy for Canada”, which is the same strategy that the Liberal government is proposing. Actually the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is very accurate because if we take the cost of the Quebec day care bureaucracy and calculate it over the size of the entire Canadian population, the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $10 billion.

We have evidence that the Liberal Party is trying to hide $9 billion worth of costs associated with its latest election promise. That is the Liberal hidden agenda on child care.

Now that we have addressed the enormous cost with which taxpayers will be faced by this Liberal day care bureaucracy, I would like to address an aspect of this issue that is even more troubling yet.

I have before me a quote that illustrates the very unfortunate attitude of the social development minister, the misogynistic attitude, the paternalistic attitude, the attitude that borders on sexism. I want to read this to the House. I was here when these words were stated on the floor of the House of Commons on February 15. He said:

A recent study, as was cited by the Vanier Institute of the Family, has found that most moms and dads with pre-school children would prefer that one parent stay home and take primary responsibility for raising the children. Again, that is not surprising. As parents we all feel guilty about the time we are not spending with our kids. However, if we asked the same group of people or any group of people if they would like to lose weight, 90% would say yes. If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same. The question, as in all of these matters, is not what we would like to do, but what we will do, and what we do.

Let us review. The fact that the Vanier Institute demonstrated that the vast majority of parents prefer an at-home child care option over the day care bureaucracy could merely be explained away by feelings such as guilt and the desire of a parent to stay in the home with the child is akin to nothing more than a frivolous desire for ice cream or chocolate. That is the attitude that drives the Liberal commitment to this day care bureaucracy.

This is an outright contempt for a woman's right to choose how to raise her own children. The government would take away that choice by imposing higher taxes on families that make the sacrifice to keep a parent in the home or pursue another child care option.

We in this party pursue a more hopeful and choice driven option. We would put child care dollars right into the pockets of parents to let them decide how to raise their own children. We would work our way toward income splitting that takes away inequities that are imposed on families with a stay at home parent.

This is all in the interest of choice and economizing taxpayer dollars and I am proud to stand for these values.

[Members of the House of Commons Recall Act, May 11th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-383, an act to allow the recall of members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill would restore the very principle of democratic accountability to our system of parliamentary democracy.

It would permit constituents who are unhappy with the representation in their given riding to form a petition requiring 50% of them to terminate the employment of that member of Parliament from his or her elected office. In other words, it would give the electorate the same rights of accountability that most employers have over their employees. It therefore would restore the basic democratic principle that we as members of Parliament are servants and not masters.

I urge all members of Parliament who believe in accountability and are willing to put their records on the line to strongly and overwhelmingly endorse this measure.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Liberal waste and Liberal corruption. We know this is a corrupt, wasteful government. I want to identify what I consider to be the number one article of waste in the Liberal government's agenda, and I would like to find out what the hon. member thinks of my thesis on this.

I believe the number one article of waste in the Liberal government's agenda is its attempt to create a government day care bureaucracy.

The supporters of a government day care bureaucracy, even in the CAW and in other organizations that have advocated a national government-run day care bureaucracy, believe it will cost between $6 billion and $10 billion per year to bring in the day care bureaucracy. At the same time as costing about 10 times what the Liberals claim it will cost, they will be taking choices away from women and families.

It is a paternalistic system and the women in my constituency have told me that they will not have the minister stand and tell them how to raise their kids. The women in my riding believe in their right to choose how to raise their own children instead of having the government take money out of their pockets and then spend it on raising other people's kids.

I want it on the record in the House, for all my constituents in my suburban Ontario riding to know, that I will fight until my dying day to stop that day care bureaucracy. It takes choices from women and families and it will waste billions. I invite the hon. member's comments.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke very much of his Liberal priorities. One such priority is the establishment of a government day care bureaucracy which the Liberals have been pushing relentlessly.

While we in this party will keep existing agreements that have been signed with the provinces, I want him to know that he will find no support on this side of the House for a government day care bureaucracy. We will take child care dollars and give them directly to parents, allowing them to make their own child care decisions.

The government day care bureaucracy is going to cost, according to its own supporters, $6 billion a year. It will bankrupt taxpayers. It is not affordable. It takes choices away from women and families.

We will oppose it. In fact if there is an election, the Prime Minister has called this the free trade issue of this election. We will oppose a government day care bureaucracy and replace it with a direct tax credit for parents.

[Government Contracts, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act says:

No person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.

As CEO and a $30 million shareholder in a company that has a $100 million contract with the government, Liberal Senator Massicotte is breaking the law. Why will the Prime Minister not ask him--