Pierre Poilievre

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday some members raised a concern about some gestures that they alleged I had made in the House of Commons at that time. I wish to say, as I am a gentleman of this House, that if any of my gestures have offended them or any member in this House, I wish to apologize and withdraw.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, secondly, I rise to speak up in favour of the human rights of Egyptian Christians, who are the minority in that country and who are systematically discriminated against and face constant intimidation by terrorist elements in that country. It is time that Canada took a strong stand against terrorism and thuggery all over the world, including in Egypt.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to urge the adoption of recommendation 2.5 in the report of the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities. They would like to see that tax credit applied with greater fairness to people who have certain kinds of disabilities, including those with juvenile diabetes.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the sovereignists need corrupt Liberals to justify achieving sovereignty. Such is the extremely useful relationship they have with corrupt Liberals who, in turn, use the separatists as an excuse for their corruption, as we have seen in connection with the sponsorship scandal.

The hon. member may try to deny this relationship between the Bloc and the Liberals. She may not want to admit that the sovereignists need the corrupt Liberals to justify separation. Otherwise, is she prepared to say loud and clear that she supports our extending sitting hours in order to pass the accountability bill, which will thoroughly clean up politics in this country, and that she will work to have this bill passed by the Senate before the summer recess?

[Canada Elections Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, now that I have finished applauding the member's question, I would like to try answering it.

We are against the Liberal practice of shaking down kids at lemonade stands. We are pushing for swift passage of the accountability act, which reins in the kind of irresponsible anti-kid approach to raising funds that we have seen from the Liberal Party of Canada.

In fact, I applaud the member and his party for working with the Conservatives to pass swiftly the accountability act. I for one can say that as a member of that committee I will support any amendment to stop this obscene practice of picking on our school kids.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that Ms. Gualtieri did expose millions of dollars' worth of Liberal corruption. The litigation in which she is now engaged is litigation of that previous government. That litigation is now under review.

What is critically important, though, is that whistleblowers be protected as soon as possible. That is why I am so disappointed to see a coalition of the Liberals and the Bloc working to block the passage of the accountability act before summer. The real question is this: why will all members of the House of Commons not begin to work together now so that we can pass whistleblower protection into law immediately?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on behalf of whistleblowers and public servants.

In fact, the corruption that Ms. Gualtieri exposed was corruption of the previous Liberal government and the litigation in which she is now involved is also litigation of a previous government. That litigation is currently under review.

Luckily we now have an accountability act before committee that is the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. It will protect whistleblowers and it will make it a criminal offence, punishable by jail time, for those people who punish whistleblowers in the way that the Liberals consistently bullied our public servants.

[Crime Fighting, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, recently I held a contest in my riding where students submitted essays on fighting crime. I am pleased to announce that Nepean High School student, Danica De Jong, was the winner.

Sponsored by a generous donation from an excellent corporate citizen, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Danica De Jong put forward a series of measured thoughts on how we can reduce crime in the community of Nepean and right across the country. Danica proposed that we needed more discipline in the system. She believes and understands that tough on crime actually works.

Danica believes that police officers must be given more resources, that there must be more of them on the street and that they must have tough laws that they can enforce to restore order in our streets.

Finally, she believes that mandatory detoxification and an end to drugs in prison is essential to ending the high rate of re-offence.

I am proud to stand up on behalf of the constituents of Nepean—Carleton and the Parliament of Canada to congratulate Miss Danica De Jong for her excellent work and as the champion crime fighter in Nepean.

[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—