Pierre Poilievre

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are some comments on Kyoto that were made by the Liberal environment critic himself which caused some great confusion in the House. He said, “When people see the cost of Kyoto, they are going to scream”. That was on January 1, 2003. In the Globe and Mail on January 29, 2002, he said, “If Canada does ratify Kyoto, the cost will be as much as $40 billion a year”.

He is standing in the House and voting for a motion today that he has said will cost $40 billion a year, the cost of which, he said, will make Canadians scream. Yesterday that critic was silenced and muzzled by his own party. He was not given the opportunity to raise these questions in the House of Commons, perhaps because of his past record saying that Kyoto's cost would make people scream.

Has the member received any notice from the official opposition that that member has been relieved of his duties as the environment critic since these troubling comments have been revealed, or is he still the critic and--

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on traditional marriage.

The petition which calls upon the government to reflect the accurate definition of the word “marriage” as being a relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others while retaining similar civil benefits for same sex couples.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House and question the member with regard to the immigration committee's report and the concurrence motion therein.

The government has moved swiftly to set up a secretariat to help with the recognition of foreign credentials: people who come to Canada well trained, well educated, and ready to put their skills to work to build on the Canadian dream. They are held up because oftentimes their credentials are not recognized here on Canadian soil.

The government is moving swiftly to set up a secretariat that will help lead to the recognition of those credentials, so that Canadian immigrants can live out the Canadian dream and contribute in a maximum way to the Canadian quality of life.

Does the member support the initiatives of the government to enhance the recognition of foreign credentials and to build on the opportunities that immigrants in this country are provided?

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member will agree that this government inherited a massive environmental mess from the previous Liberal government. The new Liberal leader was a failed environment minister under whose government greenhouse gases skyrocketed by 35%. That is twice as much as occurred in the United States under George Bush during exactly the same period.

We inherited this massive increase in greenhouse gases from the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party. In fact, greenhouse gases hit their peak under his leadership. He is a failed environment minister and now we as a government have inherited the challenge of reversing the massive trend of increased greenhouse gases that we inherited from the previous Liberal government.

We are doing the best that we can with the clean air act. It is not going to be easy because of the mess that we inherited from the new Liberal leader. However, I want to thank the leader of the NDP for his ongoing commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and to work with the clean air act in order to achieve both a reduction in those gases and a reduction in smog. I thank the member and invite him to share more of his suggestions on how that can be done.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have watched the Bloc take three different and contradictory positions. Bloc members first said they defend provincial jurisdictions, but at the same time, they gave Ottawa the power to define what Quebeckers are and to determine whether they form a nation. They gave this House that power. We therefore moved a motion to define Quebec as a nation, which upset the Bloc. It was against recognizing Quebec as a nation and was going to vote against this motion. However, the next day, it changed its tune again—for the third time—and said that it would vote in favour of defining Quebec as a nation and for a united Canada.

We now see that the Bloc has completely lost its raison d'être. It is completely pointless.

Can the minister tell us why Quebeckers should keep this party alive? Why should the Bloc Québécois exist?

[George Blackburn, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, humbled, saddened and honoured, to speak of George Blackburn, a retired World War II veteran, artillery officer, Military Cross winner, dedicated public servant, reporter, author, director, and loving husband, father, grandfather and even great-grandfather. This great Canadian passed away peacefully in his 90th year last week right here in Ottawa.

Mr. Blackburn was born in the town of Wales, Ontario, a village cleared to make way for the St. Lawrence Seaway. The project was commemorated in one of his musical plays, A Day to Remember.

He was best known publicly for his World War II book trilogy, The Guns of Normandy, which brought him the 1996 Ottawa Citizen Book of the Year Award.

He will be remembered. We extend to him all the honour of this House. May God bless his soul.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member mentioned the goal of expanding access to information and transparency in government and that his party supports the right of farmers to have access to information on the monopoly that controls all sales and marketing of western grain, wheat and barley.

Earlier on, when the member for Malpeque said that this was somehow unusual, he did not mention that virtually every crown corporation in this country will be covered by access to information after the passage of the accountability act. For example, Canada Post will be covered by access to information, as will numerous other corporations that must compete internationally. CBC, VIA Rail and BDC, which is a bank for small businesses, all these organizations will be covered by access to information, which means that they will need to compete internationally and across this country with access to information.

There is no reason why the Wheat Board cannot do the same thing. It is a federally mandated wheat monopoly. If it is controlled by farmers, then farmers ought to have the right to know what is going on in that organization.

What is the member for Malpeque hiding? What is he worried might be unearthed if farmers are given the right to file access to information requests?

There are organizations across the country that are subject to access to information. Just because we are adding CBC and Canada Post to access to information does not mean we are attacking them. It is a method of accountability and openness that is being spread right across this government as a result of the accountability act.

If the Liberal Party wants to oppose it, why will it not tell us exactly what it is that it is trying to hide from Canadian farmers?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that member will note as well that we have appointed a judge who is the head of the Laurier Club, which is the fundraising arm of the Liberal Party. That was a non-partisan decision of the government because we believed that particular individual was capable of sitting on the bench and doing the job.

We, on this side, make decisions regardless of partisan label. We have appointed people of all different partisan backgrounds and some who have no partisan affiliation whatsoever. We are cleaning up by behaviour that which the law will eventually clean up in statutory acts.

I would encourage the member to support us in swiftly passing the accountability act, which includes a new ban on political patronage, put in by the NDP, granted, but it is a new public appointments commission put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre. It is now in the act, but it will only come into effect when we have passed the accountability act, so I encourage that member to join with us to do that as swiftly as possible.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank this member specifically for her work in committee. She has worked extremely hard for her constituents and for Quebecers on the question of the Accountability Act.

She has clearly asked me whether we are prepared to accept further amendments to make more improvements to this bill. My answer is yes. We are prepared to listen to her comments and her amendments.

I have said that I will support a number of amendments that her party proposed earlier today in this House. One of her colleagues has already submitted amendments to this House. I think that some of those amendments are excellent and I will support them, as will my party in general. This is a team effort. We are very grateful for the work done by the hon. member and the work done by the NDP members to improve this bill. Everyone has been working on it for months and now that work has to be put into action. We cannot allow any more delay because Canadians are demanding that this bill be passed.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member lists all of the great mechanisms of transparency that are embedded in the current operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. It answers the phone. It has a department that responds to questions. It has annual meetings. It has audited books.

That is true of every department in the government, so by his logic, we would eliminate access to information for every department in the Government of Canada because they have audited books, they answer their phones, and they have annual financial statements.

If he really believes that all of those things disqualify an organization from coverage under the Access to Information Act, then he ought also to believe that there is no organization in Canada in the government that should be covered by access to information.

That is exactly what he is suggesting. If he believes that an organization of the government, which spends public money, should not be covered by access to information just because it answers the phone, just because it holds an annual meeting, and just because it has audited books, again he would literally eliminate the very existence of the Access to Information Act.

He says that the Canadian Wheat Board is already open. Fair enough, I will take his word for it, but what is the problem with having a belt and suspenders? If the organization is already 100% transparent then it should have no problem responding to access to information requests. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone would even file an access to information request. If the organization is already 100% open, there would not be any need for it, but there is nothing wrong with having a belt at the same time as suspenders, just to make sure.

I just go back to the same question. What is the member afraid of? What are the people who are opposed to access to information hiding?